JOAQUIM JOSE REBELLO Vs. MIRABAI GOPINATH RAIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Misc. Civil Appeal No.143/1999. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

(2.) The petitioner/original plaintiff in Reg. Civil Suit No.209/99/d has filed the suit for declaration and injunction wherein the plaintiff prayed that the defendants have no right to the suit premises as the premises which they were occupying as licensee was let out to them by way of leave and licence and is subject to natural calamity. According to the petitioner, the suit premises is not in existence at present The said suit was resisted by the respondents/ original defendants on various grounds, including the ground that the defendants are tenants under the Rent Act. In the said suit, the petitioner/original plaintiff moved an application for interim inunction under Order 39 of C. P. C. The learned trial Judge found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and rejected the application for interim injunction. That order was carried further by the present appellant/original plaintiff in appeal under Order 43 of C. P. C. The learned appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court passed in the injunction application, against which, the petitioner/org. Plaintiff has preferred this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner/org. Plaintiff submitted that once the premises has come down on account of natural calamity and the constructed portion is not in existence, the tenant has no right over the so called tenanted premises. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the tenancy right of the respondents still continues and the tenancy of the respondent cannot be said to be terminated in any manner whatsoever. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since both the Courts below have rejected the temporary injunction application, this Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction, may not interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below.