1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.346 OF 2009 Rameshre Tapsi .. Appellant Versus Bhupendra G. Gupta and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Santosh Narwate i/b. M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates for appellant Mr.Jahangir Khan representative of respondent No.1. Bhupendra Gupta present. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12th April 2010. P.C.: 1] Hearned learned Advocate for the appellant. Representative of respondent No.1 is present. Although a request for adjournment is made on behalf of respondents, in the view that I have taken, no prejudice will be caused to them, if the appeal is proceeded with in their absence. 2] The Court below has on the basis of prima facie materials produced, came to a conclusion that only limited relief can be granted to the appellant - plaintiff. At this prima facie stage the appellant ought to have produced some material to indicate that he was to be given a 2 permanent alternate accommodation in an immovable property. The description ought to have been specific. Further, on the basis of sketch plan alone the Court could not have concluded, prima facie, with regard to identity and area of the alleged permanent accommodation. Further it is stated by the defendants before the trial court that they have terminated the tenancy rights of the appellant. The trial court's attention was also invited to certain proceedings pending in the small causes court in that behalf. 3] In such view of the matter, I cannot hold that the prima facie conclusion of the trial court is vitiated so as to call for interference in the appellate jurisdiction. The finding cannot be said to be based on no material. 4] Even in such state of affairs the trial court has granted limited protection to the appellant. Therefore, the rejection of other prayers in the notice of motion does not call for interference. Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 5] At this stage, it is requested that prayer clause (c) of the civil 3 application be granted. 6] To my mind, since I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial court and particularly when there is dispute with regard to the identity of the premises, prayer clause (c) cannot be granted at this stage. However, if at a later stage of the proceedings, the appellant can point out any changed circumstances warranting trial court's assistance so as to protect his entitlement, he would be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings and seek protective interim orders, if the suit is not disposed of till then. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)