JUDGMENT M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe for the appellants and Mr. H. D. Naik for the respondent no.1. Mr Bhobe points out that respondents no.2 and 3 have been served and in any case, at least for the purpose of this appeal they are not the contesting respondents. 2. Accordingly, this appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal is taken up for disposal forthwith. 3. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 08.03.2021 made by the learned District Judge, South Goa restraining the appellants from dispossessing the respondent no.1 of his business otherwise than by due process of law. 4. Ordinarily, there might have been no scope to interfere against the impugned order because, the direction in the impugned order is merely that the appellants should not dispossess respondent no.1 of his business otherwise than by due process of law. However, if the plaint and the relief clause in the plaint are perused then, the plaintiff's (respondent no.1) relief was that the notice dated 03.04.2017 for recovery of certain amounts to be declared as unenforceable and further, for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner herein from taking any coercive steps for recovery of amount referred to in the notice dated 03.04.2017. 5. The application for temporary injunction was also made in terms of prayer clause (b) of the plaint. 6. There is a serious dispute between the parties about the amounts which the respondent no.1 is liable to pay for occupying the municipal property which admeasures 360 sq.mtrs. and from where respondent no.1 is operating a petrol pump. 7. Learned District Judge has referred to certain provisions of the Municipalities Act and taken the view that the amounts have to be determined by adhering to the said provisions. However, in doing so, the learned District Judge, has failed to take cognizance of the pleadings in paragraph 34 of the plaint instituted by respondent no.1, which read as follows: "34. The Plaintiff submits that 'while the said issue of settlement of Rent was going on there were several Meetings held with the Defendants. It was finally decided that the said Rent would be fixed at Rs 15/Per Sq. Meter and which was agreeable to the Plaintiff and who gave his willingness to the same. The Plaintiff submits that 'while the said issue of settlement of Rent was going on there were several Meetings held with the Defendants. It was finally decided that the said Rent would be fixed at Rs 15/Per Sq. Meter and which was agreeable to the Plaintiff and who gave his willingness to the same. The Plaintiff however asked that a fresh Lease be entered into for the said purpose. The same has not been done till date and the said issue is still pending with the Defendants." 8. This is a matter where there is no dispute that the appellant-municipal council is the owner of the suit property. There is a document of lease on record though, it is the case of the appellant-council that this lease has long expired. Mr. Bhobe submits that even in terms of the Goa Municipalities Act, a Council, cannot grant a lease for a period exceeding three years. Mr. Bhobe submits that in terms of the resolution passed by the Council, the rates have been determined particularly in cases where the lease period has expired. 9. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into the several issues that may have been raised in the suit. However, one thing is clear from paragraph 34 of the plaint that the respondent no.1 had agreed for the payment @ 15 per sq.mtr. which corresponds to Rs. 64,800/- in respect of the suit property. No doubt, this agreement was subject to fresh lease being entered. However, the pleadings in paragraph 34, at least suggest that respondent no.1 had no serious objections to make payments of annual lease rent of Rs. 64,800/- no doubt, without prejudice to its rights and contentions. 10. The record indicates that respondent no.1 is insisting upon the payment only @ Rs. 5000/- per annum which is the rate determined in the year 1962 or thereabouts. Mr. Bhobe submits that even this amount has not been paid. However, Mr. Naik submits that this amount has been paid. Again, at this stage, it is not necessary to go into this controversy. 11. Since, some equitable relief was applied for by respondent no.1 and the same has been granted, even the respondent no.1, should have been put to terms. Respondent no.1 cannot insist upon continuing to pay only Rs. 5000/- per annum which was the rate determined in the year 1962. 11. Since, some equitable relief was applied for by respondent no.1 and the same has been granted, even the respondent no.1, should have been put to terms. Respondent no.1 cannot insist upon continuing to pay only Rs. 5000/- per annum which was the rate determined in the year 1962. Ultimately, from the suit property, the respondent no.1 is operating the petrol pump. There is no dispute that this is a municipal property and therefore, ordinarily, the municipality, should be able to get the best possible price for such property. 12. There is no real apprehension of dispossession of respondent no.1 otherwise than by due process of law. Mr. Bhobe also agreed that the municipality, cannot take law in its own hands and will have to follow due process of law if it wishes to dispossess respondent no.1. 13. Now that the respondent no.1 is seeking a restraint upon recovery, the minimum that is expected from the respondent no.1 is that he pays an amount of Rs. 64,800/- per annum. Mr. Naik submits that this amount will come to hardly Rs. 11 to Rs. 12 lakhs and not over Rs. 1 crore as demanded by the Council. At the interim stage, the respondent no.1 should therefore be directed to pay to the municipal council an amount of Rs. 64,800/- per annum, which, comes to approximately Rs. 11 to Rs. 12 lakhs. 14. The impugned order is therefore modified and it is made clear that there shall be a restraint on any further recoveries by the appellants in terms of the impugned notice but such restraint will stand lifted if respondent no.1, does not, within six weeks, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, pay the sum @ Rs. 64,800/- per annum, which comes to approximately Rs. 11 to Rs. 12 lakhs to the appellant-Council. The appellant-Council shall also receive this amount without prejudice to its rights and contentions. If the respondent no.1 wishes the interim protection to continue during the pendency of the suit, then, the respondent no.1 will have to pay the amount of Rs. 64,800/- per annum on or before the due date. 15. The suit will have to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations in the impugned order or for that matter in the present order. 64,800/- per annum on or before the due date. 15. The suit will have to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations in the impugned order or for that matter in the present order. Further, it is made clear that this interim arrangement is not to be construed as some restraint on the Council from taking action in terms of the law both, for recovering the amounts which it claims and for recovering the suit premises. Therefore, nothing in this order should be construed as some license by this Court or some approval by this Court to continue with the lease otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Municipalities Act or the relevant rules as may be applicable. 16. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. The civil application does not survive and the same is also disposed of.