JUDGMENT The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Appeal from Order as the learned trial Judge by impugned order dated 16 May 2013, refused to grant ad-interim relief as sought for. 2. The Appellant has prayed/challenged the action of Respondent No.1, whereby they have sealed the suit premises i.e. shop No.7 situated at building No.14, Bismillah Beef Shop, Hiranandani Akruti, Tata Nagar, Mankhurd(W), Mumbai. There is no dispute that the Plaintiff is the original allottee of the suit premises. He is in occupation and possession since the date of allotment. As per the policy/Regulation, such allottee cannot transfer and/or create third party right or interest in the suit premises without the permission of Respondent No.1. Based upon some complaints, Respondent No.1's Officer/Agent visited the shop and noted that a third person, than the allottee, is using and running the shop in the said premises. The so-called notice was given only to the occupier and not to the Plaintiff/original allottee. The occupier appeared before the Authority pursuance to the show cause notice and pointed out that pursuance to the Power of Attorney, he is doing business on behalf of the Plaintiff. 3. Admittedly, no separate and/or individual notice was served upon the original allottee even as per the office record of Respondent No.1. There is nothing on record to show and/or suggest the service of such notice. However, based upon this information, without giving any opportunity to the Appellant/plaintiff, Respondent No.1 sealed the premises which, in my view, is impermissible. Once the premises is allotted by the Respondent/Authority, any breach if committed by the occupier/allottee, the action is required to be taken in accordance with law. The principle of natural justice and fair opportunity just cannot be overlooked while taking such drastic action though third person is in possession of the allotted premises in question. The nature of possession of third person/party in the present case and as contended, based upon the material placed on record, was on the basis of General Power of Attorney given by the Plaintiff, who is a senior citizen, to do the business on his behalf, just cannot be overlooked. Such occupation of third person than allottee, whether permissible and/or not, is again a matter of trial and/or the terms of the allotment, but the action of sealing the premises, in my view, is contrary to law apart from the principle of natural justice as recorded above. Such occupation of third person than allottee, whether permissible and/or not, is again a matter of trial and/or the terms of the allotment, but the action of sealing the premises, in my view, is contrary to law apart from the principle of natural justice as recorded above. Admittedly, no show cause notice was served upon the original allottee. Therefore, the sealing of the premises is apparently contrary to law and is unsustainable. The burden cannot be put upon the Plaintiff at this prima facie stage to justify the action of permitting third person to do the business on his behalf. The burden is upon Respondent No.1 before taking action to verify and confirm the position. Even before sealing such allotted premises, in my view, the requirement is that Respondent No.1 should have cancelled the allotment first and after giving opportunity to vacate the premises, later on should have sealed the premises and not before that. Here Respondent No.1 sealed the premises and now want explanation and/or putting burden upon Appellant/plaintiff to support their conduct of permitting to do the business on his behalf in the allotted premises. 4. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and considering the above undisputed position on record, I am inclined to grant the Notice of Motion as filed by the Plaintiff as the case is made out for grant of a mandatory injunction/order. The Court is empowered, in such circumstances, to restore the original position by ordering unsealing of the premises. The irreparable injury, balance of convenience and the equity, apart from conduct, lies in favour of the Appellant and certainly not in favour of Respondent No.1. No one will be benefited by keeping such premises sealed till the disposal of the suit or settlement between the parties. 5. The Notice of Motion is therefore granted in terms of prayer (a), pending the decision of the Suit. However, it is made clear that the Appellant/plaintiff shall not transfer and/or create third party right or interest, in the suit premises, till disposal of the Suit. 6. The Appeal from Order is accordingly allowed. Civil Application No.744/2013 is also disposed of accordingly. No costs.