: 1 : FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1019 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1241 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s . orders or directions and . Registrar’s orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.K. Dhakepalkar, Senior Counsel i/b Mr.Rajesh Datar for the Appellant. Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Ramashish Maurya for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr.Randhir Singh for Respondent No.6. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. It is necessary to note at the out-set that this is not a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for specific performance. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff himself is that he occupied the premises under a leave and licence agreement dated 14.2.2005. Admittedly the period of that agreement : 2 : has come to an end. The Respondents deny that the agreement was entered into with the Plaintiff in his personal capacity. Their contention is that the Plaintiff was only a constituted attorney of Defendant Nos.4 and 5. Be that as it may, the fact is that admittedly possession of the premises was taken over on 13.2.2007. The Plaintiff contends that he handed over possession due to various threats, the particulars whereof are mentioned inter-alia in paragraph 8 of the plaint. The Defendants have denied the same. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 in their affidavit in reply have stated that the Plaintiff handed over possession voluntarily. 2. It is pertinent to note that the first complaint in writing was almost a year after the alleged forcible dispossession. The suit was filed only on 25.4.2008. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s contention at the inter-locutory stage. It is very difficult at this stage to grant a mandatory order placing the Plaintiff in possession after a period of : 3 : almost two years. 3. In the facts of this case I am not inclined to direct the Respondents to maintain status-quo. Apart from the above facts, even assuming that the Plaintiff exercised his rights under clause 2 of the leave and licence agreement for renewal of the leave and licence agreement, it would make no difference. The extended period would expire in August, 2010. In the meantime third party rights have already been created in favour of Respondent No.6/Defendnt No.6. The Plaintiff must in these circumstances be relegated to a claim for damages. 4. Respondent No.6 states that at present Respondent No.6 does not intend surrendering his rights in respect of the suit premises. In the circumstances, in the event of Defendant No.6 desiring to do so before 15.12.2008, he shall do so only after giving the Appellant’s advocates in this Court notice in writing seven days in advance. : 4 : 5. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. The Civil Application is also dismissed.