ARUN INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal taking exception to the dismissal of a motion taken out by it to restrain respondents from entering on and taking possession of plot bearing No. 123-CD, Kandivli Industrial Estate, Bombay 400067.

(2.) THE suit plot of land was given under the agreement at Ex. A to the plaintiff by the Government represented by respondent No. 3. The agreement is described as a thirty years lease of the plot of land. Paintiff was permitted to put up industrial sheds on the plot which sheds were not to be used for any purpose other than as industrial sheds. Clauses IX and X of Ex. A are important, and the first restrained the plaintiff for sub-dividing or disposing of without the permission of the lessor "any part of the said plot". The second clause afore-mentioned prohibited the plaintiff from assigning, under-letting " the said plot or any part thereof to anybody without the previous consent in writing of the Collector etc. " Plaintiff erected some structures on the plot and installed machinery therein. The machinery together with the sheds numbering about three were worked for sometime by concerns doing business in the name and style of Bharat Engineering Cos M/s. Ganesh Plastic and M/s. Moon Light Electroplates. Agreements governing this type of transaction between the plaintiff on the one hand and the concerns afore-mentioned on the other, were on the same lines as Ex. B and C. The respondent alleged that the said transactions violated certain terms of Ex. A. For that reason a notice of forfeiture was given to the plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed against the decision to the Divisional Commissioner and failing there, to the State Government. The appeals having failed, plaintiff instituted Suit No. 4663 of 1985 in the City Civil Court at Bombay. The suit was for a declaration that no condition of Ex. A had been violated, for which reason respondents were not entitled to take possession of the suit plot. A consequential injunction to restrain the taking over of the plot was sought. Alongside the institution of the suit, plaintiff moved a motion seeking an interim injunction to prevent the taking over of the plot until the disposal of the suit. The motion was opposed by the respondents. After hearing parties the learned Judge held that plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case and that it was not therefore entitled to the interim injunction. This order is assailed in appeal. Mr. Patel representing the appellant contends that all the reasons given by the Judge hearing the motion for refusing interim relief are fallacious. The submission advanced by the learned Counsel is sustained and the appeal is allowed for the reasons given below.

(3.) THE first reason given by the learned Judge is that plaintiff had failled in a writ petition taken out by it to assail the forfeiture of the lease. Mr. Patel says that this view is untenable and relies upon (The Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. The Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust and another) in support of this submission. The writ petition was disposed of by a single word order viz. "rejected". In the aforementioned authority the Supreme Court held as under:---