JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. The petitioner is a co-operative housing society and the respondent a partnership Firm. In 1986 the Society let the Firm erect an advertisement-hoarding structure within its premises. Thus, the Society is the licensor and the Firm the licensee. From time to time, this arrangement has continued with the renewal of the Leave and License Agreement ("LL Agreement"). Eventually, when the final phase of the agreement stood renewed on 28th October 2010, it was for eight years, that is, till 31st March 2018. As the period was about to expire, there arose differences between the licensor and the licensee. And that has led to this litigation.

2. The facts stated ever so briefly, the licensor and the licensee initially, in 1986, entered into an LL Agreement, which was renewed with suitable modifications in 1993, 1996 and in 1998. Finally, the licensor and the licensee executed two separate agreements on 28th February 2010: one for maintenance charges and the other for the rental charges. Under them, the licensee agreed to pay Rs. 46,000/- cumulatively towards the maintenance and the rental charges. As the license period was to end on 31st March 2018, the licensor and the licensee corresponded to have the license extended. The talks failed.

3. So the licensee filed Suit No. 73/2018 in the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, by invoking Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court 1892. In that suit, the licensee, as the plaintiff, applied for an ad interim injunction to restrain the licensor from dispossessing it. But the Trial Court, through its order dated 7th August 2018, dismissed the application. Aggrieved, the licensee filed Ms. Appeal No. 300/2018 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court.

4. Then, through its order dated 21st September 2018, the Appellate Bench reversed the Trial Court's order and granted an ad interim injunction. Thus the licensee secured an injunction not to be dispossessed without due process of law, pending the suit. Equitably, the Appellate Bench also observed that the licensor could claim interim compensation for the licensee's use and occupation.

5. Now, challenging the Appellate Bench's order, dated 21st September 2018 in Misc. Appeal No. 300/2018, the licensor has filed this writ petition.

Submissions:

Petitioner's:

6. Shri Suraj Gothwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the licensee is a chronic defaulter. According to him, all along the licensee continued on the strength of an agreement which was renewed from time to time, but beyond 31st March 2018, it was not renewed. About the licensee's intention to renew the agreements, Shri Gothwal contends that it showed no inclination towards it. Only in response to the Society's email on 6th March 2018, did the licensee dash a letter on the next day as if it sent the letter the previous day oblivious of the licensor's email.

7. About the possession, Shri Suraj Gothwal has contended that the licensee as a true owner has continued to possess the property; it only permitted the licensee to use the property for a specific purpose. In other words, the licensee's possession, if any, is permissive and it gives no independent right to the licensee to squat over the property beyond the license period.

8. Taking me through the plaint averments, Shri Gothwal has stressed that the pleadings are devoid of any assertion that the licensor had used force, or at least tried, to dispossess the licensee. In that context, he submits that Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court travelled beyond the pleadings and granted an ad interim injunction, disregarding the discretion exercised by the Trial Court- and with no justifiable reason, at that.

9. About the renewal clause, Shri Gothwal submits that the licensee, no doubt, was entitled to renewal. But that should be only when it complied with all the contract conditions, one of them being its regularly paying the monthly charges. The licensee has admittedly been, according to Shri