JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant (for short 'the defendant') against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No.70/2007 titled as Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. M/s Grass Field Petro Company Pvt. Ltd., by which the trial court had decreed the respondent-plaintiff's (for short 'the plaintiff') suit and directed to remove the two walls constructed in the southern eastern side, and the iron gate installed for ingress and outgress purposes. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit to the effect that plaintiff had taken a land as mentioned in para 3 of the plaint, measuring 45.72 mtrs. X 45.72 mtrs. total 2506 sq. meter area on lease on 18.11.2003 from defendant. A lease deed was executed and registered between the plaintiff and defendant on 27.01.2005. As per lease deed, lease money of Rs.6850/- per month was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff had established a petrol pump on said land at its own expenses. The plaintiff paid the lease money of Rs.2,05,582/-from 18.11.2003 to 31.10.2006 by way of cheque after deducting the TDS and Education Cess. Despite having received the lease money, the defendant had filed a suit for recovery of lease money and also mentioned that they had given the disputed land which was on lease with the plaintiff, to Speciality Advisers Private Limited on rent on 07.10.2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff also came to know that defendant had built two walls of 5 feet height and 13 feet long in southern eastern side and also installed the iron gate and put a lock thereon. So, the plaintiff was facing difficulty in using petrol pump. Registered lease deed was for a period of 19 years and 11 months. So, during the existence of lease deed, defendant had no right to construct or create any obstruction in the plaintiff's business. 3. The defendant had filed written statement and submitted that the plaintiff had not paid the lease amount. So, as per the condition No.4(e) of the lease, the defendant had taken the possession of the disputed land and gave it on rent to the Speciality Advisers Private Limited on 07.10.2006. So, no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff. So, suit be dismissed. 4. So, as per the condition No.4(e) of the lease, the defendant had taken the possession of the disputed land and gave it on rent to the Speciality Advisers Private Limited on 07.10.2006. So, no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff. So, suit be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiff had taken the disputed property as mentioned in para 2 and 3 of the plaint on lease from the defendant company and on the lease property, the plaintiff corporation company is in possession? (2) Whether in order to obstruct the ingress and outgress, the defendant company had erected two walls of 5 feet height and 13 feet long at the disputed property and at the place of entry and exist had installed the iron gate and put a lock thereon? (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get mandatory injunction against the defendant to the effect that the two walls of 5 feet height and 13 feet long got erected by the defendant in order to obstruct the ingress and outress from the disputed property and installation of iron gate and putting a lock thereon be removed forthwith and not to cause any interference in running the business by the plaintiff? (4) Whether as per the condition No.4 (e) of the lease deed, the plaintiff's possession had already expired and Speciality Advisers Private Limited was in possession of the suit property ? (5) Relief? 5. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the trial court wrongly granted mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the trial court in its judgment mentioned that possession of the plaintiff is prima facie legally proved, whereas there is no legal possession of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the defendant had taken possession of the disputed property because as per condition No.4(e) of the lease deed, the plaintiff had not paid the lease money and defendant had given disputed premises to Speciality Advisers Private Limited. Defendant had submitted the documents EX.A/4, A/5, A/7 and A/9 which clearly show that disputed land is in possession of the Speciality Advisers Private Limited. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the police documents Ex.A7 to A29 also proved the possession of the Speciality Advisers Private Limited. Defendant had submitted the documents EX.A/4, A/5, A/7 and A/9 which clearly show that disputed land is in possession of the Speciality Advisers Private Limited. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the police documents Ex.A7 to A29 also proved the possession of the Speciality Advisers Private Limited. So, when possession was not with the plaintiff, then mandatory injunction could not be granted. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the plaintiff had not filed the suit for possession and filed the suit for mandatory injunction simplicitor. So, judgment and decree passed by the trial court be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had possession over the disputed property because as per the lease deed, possession could be taken after giving notice to the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that no notice was given to the plaintiff for termination of the lease deed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that there is no evidence that disputed land was in possession of the Speciality Advisers Private Limited. When lease deed was in existence, then defendant had no right to interfere in the business of the plaintiff and also construct any wall etc. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC. The trial court had ordered to remove the wall and iron gate in compliance of the order passed by the trial court. Najir of the Court had removed the wall and gate and they had submitted the photographs of the present situation. So, the appeal be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. 8. It is an admitted position that the defendant had given the disputed land to the plaintiff on lease. As per the conditions of the lease deed, lease can be terminated after giving notice to the plaintiff. It is also admitted position that the said notice was not given to the plaintiff. During trial, defendant failed to prove that he had given the disputed land to the Speciality Advisers Private Limited on rent. As per the conditions of the lease deed, lease can be terminated after giving notice to the plaintiff. It is also admitted position that the said notice was not given to the plaintiff. During trial, defendant failed to prove that he had given the disputed land to the Speciality Advisers Private Limited on rent. The trial court had ordered to remove the obstruction created by the defendant and Najir had removed obstruction created by them. So, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in granting the mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.