Facts

• Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande was the Appellant-Defendant and the owner of the suit premises.
• Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta & another were the Respondent-Plaintiff and the tenant at the suit premises.
• The first Respondent - Plaintiff claimed to be running an eating house, pan shop, and fabrication work at the suit premises rented since 1977 at Rs. 55 per month.
• The first Respondent-Plaintiff claimed that he had repeatedly requested the Appellant-Defendant to carry out essential repairs on the suit premises, but the Appellant - Defendant refused. After obtaining the permission from the Corporation for repairs, the Respondent was obstructed by the Appellant on 19.08.2004, leading him to file a suit for a permanent injunction.
• The first Respondent - Plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court for permanent injunction to restrain the Appellant from disturbing his possession.
• The Appellant-defendant emphasised a settlement in RCS No. 1004/1988, in which the first respondent-plaintiff handed over possession of the suit premises, terminating the landlord-tenant relationship.
• The trial court dismissed the suit noting the first Respondent - Plaintiff failed to produce a license or electricity connection to prove his business activities at the suit premises.
• Aggrieved, the Respondent- Plaintiff appealed to the First Appellate Court challenging the Trial court's dismissal of the suit.
• The First Appellate Court allowed the Respondent-Plaintiff’s appeal, concluding that there was no evidence of him vacating the premises after the withdrawal of RCS No.1004/1988 in 1991.
• The court, referencing Respondent’s testimony and other evidence, affirmed his possession. It found the trial court’s presumption of possession based on the withdrawal statement (Purshis Ex.-41) incorrect and ruled in favour of the Respondent.
• The Appellant-Defendant challenged the appellate court’s decision by filing Writ Petition No.6873 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was subsequently dismissed.
• Hence, the present appeal was raised before this court.

Main Issue:

• Whether the High Court and the First Appellate Court erred while granting the permanent injunction in favour of the first Respondent-Plaintiff despite his failure to prove actual possession? (Paragraph 7)