4820-2026-WP=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4820 OF 2026 Padma Amol Pise & Ors. … Petitioners Vs. Shri 1008 Chandraprabhu Digambar Jain Temple Trust … Respondent …………. Mr. Umesh H Pawar for the Petitioners. Mr. Nikhil Pawar a/w Manasi Patil, Rajdeep Shitole for the Respondent. …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER : . Heard both sides. 2. The petition takes except to judgment and order dated 24.08.2026 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2026 confirming rejection of Application Exh.5 for temporary injunction in R.C.S. No. 203 of 2026. 3. The petitioners have filed suit seeking relief of injunction that respondent be restrained from causing any obstruction in carrying out tenantable repairs of the premises. The temporary injunction is claimed on the same line which is rejected on merits vide order dated 15.07.2026 which is confirmed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2026. The petitioners are tenants and in possession of shop which is double storied, measuring Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 5 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.10.05 16:06:44 +0530 4820-2026-WP=.doc 53.50 sq.meters situated at City Survey No. 4438 at Islampur, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli. The respondent is the landlord. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Umesh Pawar submits that both the Courts below committed error of jurisdiction in refusing to grant injunction under the garb of notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by the Municipal Council under Section 195 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act which is patent illegality. The notice is got up one and is inconsequential for grating relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondent is instrumental in creating false exigency and with a oblique motive got issued the notice. It is submitted that the statutory right of the petitioners under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is overlooked by both the Courts below. It is submitted that the structural audit conducted at the instance of the petitioners falsify the claim of the respondent and the Municipal Council. The petitioners have strong prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in their favour. They are sustaining irreparable loss as the tenanted premise is not habitable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the false structural audit report has been submitted by the respondent. The notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by the Municipal Council is subjected to challenge in Writ Petition before the Division Bench and it is not Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 5 4820-2026-WP=.doc executable. The petitioners are ready to bear expenses for the repairs. If the petitioners are permitted to carry out repairs that would be without prejudice to any claim of the respondent for eviction. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and Anr. Vs. Khatija Ismail Panhalkar & Ors. (2024) 11 SCC 661. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Nikil Pawar submits that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The matter involves disputed questions of facts. The tenanted premise is dilapidated and hazardous to the surrounding properties. My attention is adverted to the notice issued on 07.06.2019 to the petitioners and the report of structural audit prepared at the instance of the respondent. It is submitted that granting relief to the petitioner at interlocutory stage would amount to final relief. 7. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I have gone through the judgment cited by the petitioners in case of Baitulla Ismail Shaikh (supra). The purport of the notice issued under Section 195 of the Act and its consequences are considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of eviction proceedings initiated by landlord against the tenant. The facts are distinguishable and the ratio laid down therein cannot be Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 5 4820-2026-WP=.doc made applicable to the present case. In the case at hand, the petitioners are not facing any eviction proceedings. The matter is at interlocutory stage. The suit of the petitioners is still pending. 8. It reveals from the record that the relief claimed by Application at Exh.5 is identical that of final relief claimed in the plaint. It is rightly recorded by the Courts below that granting temporary injunction would amount to grant of final relief in the suit. This Court is alive of the fact that in the exceptional circumstances such a interim relief can be granted but in the absence of strong prima facie case and irreparable loss such a recourse can be adopted. 9. Both the parties have rival claims regarding the dilapidated condition of the premises. Admittedly, two storied structure is let out to the petitioners for running a shop. On both sides of the structure permanent constructions are standing sharing common wall. The structural audit report submitted by the parties can be gone into during the course of trial. A full fledged inquiry into facts and law needs to be undertaken. The petitioners have right under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Rent Act to carry out tenantable repairs. 10. In the teeth of issuance of notice under Section 195 of the Act, it cannot be recorded that there is violation of statutory right of the Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 5 4820-2026-WP=.doc petitioners when the matter is at interlocutory stage. It is not possible to record a finding that notice under Section 195 was got issued with oblique motive. The validity of the notice is not questioned in the suit. The petitioners have already challenged it in the High Court and the matter is sub-judice. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has rightly submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts and both the Courts below have taken reasonable and plausible view. I find that no case is made out by the petitioners to cause interference. 12. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 5