JUDGMENT : 1. Special Leave granted. 2. There is a lodging house known as 'Ganesh Lodge' situated at No. 208, Subedar Chatram Road, Bangalore. The appellants asserted that they have been residing in the Lodge for over a decade and the rates paid by the appellants range between Rs. 50/- to Rs. 180/- per month. Respondent No. 1 is the Managing partner of the firm running the Lodge and respondent No. 2 is the Manager of the Lodge. 3. Respondent Nos 1 and 2 made a public announcement on October 30, 1980, that Ganesh Lodge was being closed down from December 1, 1980, and the lodgers including the appellants were asked to vacate their rooms on or before November 30, 1980. In this background appella, is filed O.S. No. 10266 of 1980 in the Court of Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore for a permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the appellants' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their occupation of the Lodge until they are evicted by due process of law. In this suit the appellants prayed for a permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from forcibly evicting them and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from stopping or withholding the supply of electricity and water. 4. The learned Trial Judge granted exparte ad-interim injunction and when the respondents entered appearance after notice, he confirmed the same after hearing both the sides. The first respondent, the Managing partner filed MFA No. 338 of 1981 in the High Court of Karnataka against the order confirming the injunction. The High Court entertained the appeal, interfered with the prima-facie findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge and vacated the injunction. The High Court further observed that as the present appellants were still in possession of the premises, they were granted time till January 31, 1981 to vacate the premises. 5. The appellants approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 6. A notice was issued to the respondents calling them to show cause why leave to appeal should not be granted. Mr. K.N. Bhatt, learned advocate appeared for respondents l and 2. At one stage it was suggested that the respondents are also running another lodge and they would provide accommodation to the appellants in the other lodge and to work out the modalities of this suggested arrangement, we adjourned the matter. 7. Mr. K.N. Bhatt, learned advocate appeared for respondents l and 2. At one stage it was suggested that the respondents are also running another lodge and they would provide accommodation to the appellants in the other lodge and to work out the modalities of this suggested arrangement, we adjourned the matter. 7. When the special leave petition came up for hearing today, even though we are called upon to interfere with the interim order prima facie being of the opinion that the approach of the High Court vacating the interim injunction needs examination, we are inclined to grant leave. Mr. K.N. Bhatt, learned advocate, however, fairly suggested that this Court should dispose of the matter here and now and he is prepared to make a statement on behalf of respondents I and 2 that the respondents 1 and 2 would not evict the appellants except after following due procedure which according to Mr. Bhatt was to initiate proceedings under section 37 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1961. Mr. Nariman, learned advocate for the appellants fairly stated that the appellants' case-would be governed by section 37 and therefore if the respondents 1 and 2 assure that the appellants would not be dispossessed except after initiating proceedings under section 37 and obtain order of the competent authority which the appellants would be entitled to contest. 8. In view of the concession on either side we are spared the necessity of examining the judgment of the High Court on merits. In view of the concession made by Mr. Bhatt on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 we allow this appeal which would mean that the appellants would not be evicted except according to due process of law. Respondents 1 and 2 would be at liberty to commence proceedings against the appellants under section 37 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1961 which the appellants would be entitled to contest. We, however, record the statement of Mr. Nariman that the appellants concede that they would be governed by Section 37 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1961. Mr. Bhatt further assured us that till evicted water and electricity amenities enjoyed by appellants will not be withheld. 9. Appellants should pay arrears of rates, if any, within two months from today and continue to pay the same regularly from month to month. 10. In view of this position, Mr. Mr. Bhatt further assured us that till evicted water and electricity amenities enjoyed by appellants will not be withheld. 9. Appellants should pay arrears of rates, if any, within two months from today and continue to pay the same regularly from month to month. 10. In view of this position, Mr. Nariman has assured us that the appellants would withdraw the suit within 10 days from today failing which it would be open to respondents 1 and 2 to approach the Trial Court to get the suit dismissed in view of this decision. Appeal disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.