The Court emphasized the high standard required for the grant of a temporary mandatory injunction and the need to consider irreparable harm and balance of convenience. It also highlighted that such relief at the interlocutory stage should not amount to a virtual grant of final relief in the suit.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. S.G. Desai, the learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Ms. Shalaka Shalke for the Appellants in both the appeals and Mr. Amit Palekar for the Respondents.

2. On 7/9/2020, we had made it clear that subject to constraints of time, an endeavor shall be made to dispose of this Appeal finally at the stage of admission. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that both these Appeals can be disposed of by a common Judgment and Order since, the challenge in both these Appeals is to the common Judgment and Order dated 28/1/2020 made by the District Judge, South Goa at Margao (Commercial Court).

3. Commercial Appeal Stamp Number (Main) No.639 of 2020 is directed against the dismissal of application for a temporary mandatory injunction at Exhibit 7 and Commercial Appeal Stamp Number (Main) No.923 of 2020 is directed against the dismissal of application at Exhibit D-17. Both the applications were filed before the Commercial Court by the Appellant herein. Accordingly, both these Commercial Appeals are admitted and taken up for final disposal with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The challenge in both these Appeals is to the order dated 28/1/2020, made by the District Court, South Goa, at Margao in Special Civil Suit (Commercial) No.7/2019, dismissing the Appellant's (original Plaintiff) applications at Exhibits 7, 17 and 24, seeking, inter alia, for a temporary mandatory injunction, requiring the Respondents (original Defendants) to vacate the suit hotel premises and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the Appellant.

5. The case of the Appellants is that vide Agreement of Leave and Licence dated 13/4/2018, they had permitted the Respondents to run and manage the Appellant's suit hotel premises for 99 months commencing from 1/5/2018 and ending on 31/7/2026, if not otherwise terminated in the manner provided in the said agreement. The Appellant's case is that the Respondents defaulted the payment of license fees and committed several other breaches of the Agreement dated 13/4/2018 and, therefore, the Appellant terminated such license and instituted the suit seeking several reliefs, including a decree to direct the Respondents to hand over the keys of the suit hotel premises, forthwith and/or cease to carry out the business in the suit premises by themselves or through their agents, etc. A decree for monetary relief was also applied for by the Appellant since, it was the case of the Appellant that several amounts were due under the Agreement dated 13/4/2018, before its termination.

6. The Appellant applied for a temporary mandatory injunction to require the Respondents to hand over the suit premises forthwith to the Appellant and/or to cease to carry out any business from the suit premises, pending final disposal of the Suit.

7. The Respondents denied the case set out by the Appellant in the plaint but submitted that the agreement, though styled as one of leave and license was, in fact, a lease deed. The Respondents also contended that the agreement contemplated carrying out several renovations and repairs to the suit premises by the Respondents, to make the suit premises usable as hotel premises and further that such repairs and renovations were in fact undertaken by the Respondents at their cost, estimated at Rs. 1.00 crore or thereabouts. The Respondents further contended that there was no default whatsoever in the payment of rents, but based on a misinterpretation of clauses 7 and 8 of the agreement, the Appellant claimed defaults and, in a high-handed manner, attempted to repudiate the agreement. The Respondents submitted that in fact, excess payments have been made to the Appellant and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The Respondents opposed the grant of any temporary mandatory injunction or orders for deposit of all