Hegde, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

The appellant herein questions the correctness of an order by the appellate Bench of the High Court at Calcutta which by the impugned order set aside the order made by a learned Single Judge on the original civil jurisdiction of that Court in GA No. 682 of 1999 in CS No. 99 of 1999. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The respondent herein filed a suit for possession alleging the appellant herein to be a licensee and the period of licence having expired he was entitled to a decree for khas possession of the suit schedule property as also for certain other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit he filed an interlocutory application, firstly praying for a judgment on admission and in the alternative, for an injunction directing the appellant herein to immediately hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property premises to the respondent-plaintiff. The learned Single Judge who heard the said application came to the conclusion that he did not find any reason to pass a decree on admission or to grant interim mandatory injunction directing the appellant-defendant to hand over possession of the flat in view of the fact that the suit was still pending in the Court and granting of such relief would tantamount to a decree before trial for which the respondent has not made out a case.

It is against the said dismissal of the plaintiff's application, an appeal was filed confining the appeal only to the reliefs by way of injunction seeking interim possession of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. The appellate Bench, after noticing the arguments of the parties and the documents produced, came to the conclusion that prima facie the relationship between the parties was that of licensee and licensor. It also came to the conclusion that at one point of time in 1998 the appellants were willing to voluntarily surrender the possession but did not do so because the respondent did not agree to repay the security amount. It also came to the conclusion that for about 4 years the property in question has been under a caretaker and the said property was not used for any commercial purpose. In the said background, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that it is not proper that the property (flat) should be kept in a disused condition. The appellate Bench also considered the litigation to be a luxury litigation and on this philosophical background it directed the Receiver who was earlier appointed as an interim Receiver, to make an inventory of the movables in the property, to take symbolic possession of the suit property and put the respondent-plaintiff in possession of the property under the authority of that Receiver subject to final adjudication in the original suit.

It is due to the above mandatory interim order of directing the interim possession being handed over to the plaintiffs in a suit for possession, the appellants are before us.

Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it is an admitted fact that the appellants were in possession of the suit property and the suit itself was for eviction and for possession. He contended that there was a triable issue as to the nature of possession hence a decision to hand over possession or not could have been taken only after deciding this issue and on the basis of law applicable to such relationship. Learned counsel pointed out that the trial Court has for good reasons rejected the interim application of the plaintiff holding that allowing such application would amount to grant of a decree even before trial which normally is not permissible in law. He submitted that there are no extraordinary circumstances or facts of the present case which could have permitted the appellate Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of granting the interim possession in favour of the p