The suit filed by the Union of India was registered and summons were issued on 20th November, 1987. In the suit filed by Express Newspapers, summons was issued on 7th January, 1988. The interim application filed by Express Newspapers was considered on 18th December, 1989 and vide a detailed order, a Single Judge of this Court, observed that the main question raised is as to whether the judgment of Justice Sen is a minority judgment or would constitute the ratio of the Supreme Court. The said question, as per the Single Judge was a serious legal issue which required to be considered. The Court also observed that most of the grounds in the impugned notice were repeated after the Supreme Court judgment. Accordingly, relief was granted in the following terms as, thus, the main question, involved in the present case, is as to whether the judgment of Mr. Justice A.P. Sen, is a minority judgment, or it constitutes the ratio of the Supreme Court. In other words, the question, which has arisen for decision, is, as to whether, the Union of India was precluded from issuing the impugned notices, to terminate the lease and to take constructive possession of the building, by directing tenants to pay rent to Union of India, as, according to plaintiffs, there was an injunction. This is purely a legal question. No-doubt, at the time of deciding an application for temporary injunction, this Court is to take only a prima facie view. But, the decision on this legal question, is likely to dispose of the present suit, filed by plaintiffs, as well as, the suit, filed by Union of India. I, therefore, do not consider proper to express any opinion, at this stage. As, there are issues of law, involved in the present suit, as well as, the suit filed by Union of India, proper issues can be framed and tried, as preliminary issues, as provided under Order 14 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. It is thus evident that there are serious questions, which are to be tried in the suit. Defendants, have alleged that, subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others, there had been new grounds, on the basis of which, the impugned termination had been effected and, therefore, the grounds for the termination were not subjects matter of dispute, before the Supreme Court stated earlier. However, this question has to be decided on merits, after trial by the Supreme Court In addition, plaintiffs have filed various documents to show that huge expenses are incurred by plaintiffs, for maintaining the building, payment of property taxes and other charges. Moreover, plaintiff no.1 has been the lessee, under the lease-deed and constructed the building, at its own expense. Plaintiff No.1 cannot be denied the benefits, as lessee. Thus, in my view, plaintiffs have got a good prima facie case. Plaintiffs are in possession of the premises and have been enjoying all the benefits as lessees for the last several years. Thus, the balance of convenience, also lies in their favour. For this reason, it can be safely said that in case, plaintiffs are denied the benefits as a lessee, then, they will suffer an irreparable loss and injury. As can be seen from the above order the Court was of the opinion that proper issues would require to be framed and there are serious questions to be tried. As per the Union of India, the impugned termination was based on new grounds after the judgment of the Supreme Court. However, considering the fact that Express Newspapers was in possession as a lessee and constructed the building at its own expense, the Court felt that the benefits of a lessee for the last several years cannot be denied. The Court then stayed the impugned notice. Thus, presently, the notice terminating the lease and re-entering the premises, is not in operation. A perusal of the above order would show that the tenants were permitted to continue paying the rent to their landlord, namely, Express Newspapers and the applications were disposed of. Both the orders were challenged before the Division Bench. The Division Bench considered the entire matter and vide order disposed of the appeals. The findings of the Division Bench were that the Division Bench need not go into the question as to whether Justice Sen’s view is a minority view. The matter was left to be decided by the Trial Court even as a preliminary issue. The injunction granted ought to have had imposed certain conditions in regard to the rents which were being paid by the sub-tenants. The Single Judge had not considered the imposition of certain conditions and hence other similar applications were remanded in there terms. We leave the said question open, but for that reason we consider it necessary to remand I.A. 145/88 as well as other I.As to the learned Trial Judge to enable him to consider whether any further directions in regard to the rents are necessary here. The suit filed by the Union of India was registered and summons were issued on 20th November, 1987. In the suit filed by Express Newspapers, summons was issued on 7th January, 1988. The interim application filed by Express Newspapers was considered on 18th December, 1989 and vide a detailed order, a Single Judge of this Court, observed that the main question raised is as to whether the judgment of Justice Sen is a minority judgment or would constitute the ratio of the Supreme Court. The said question, as per the Single Judge was a serious legal issue which required to be considered. The Court also observed that most of the grounds in the impugned notice were repeated after the Supreme Court judgment. Accordingly, relief was granted in the following terms as, thus, the main question, involved in the present case, is as to whether the judgment of Mr. Justice A.P. Sen, is a minority judgment, or it constitutes the ratio of the Supreme Court. In other words, the question, which has arisen for decision, is, as to whether, the Union of India was precluded from issuing the impugned notices, to terminate the lease and to take constructive possession of the building, by directing tenants to pay rent to Union of India, as, according to plaintiffs, there was an injunction. This is purely a legal question. No-doubt, at the time of deciding an application for temporary injunction, this Court is to take only a prima facie view. But, the decision on this legal question, is likely to dispose of the present suit, filed by plaintiffs, as well as, the suit, filed by Union of India. I, therefore, do not consider proper to express any opinion, at this stage. As, there are issues of law, involved in the present suit, as well as, the suit filed by Union of India, proper issues can be framed and tried, as preliminary issues, as provided under Order 14 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. It is thus evident that there are serious questions, which are to be tried in the suit. Defendants, have alleged that, subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others, there had been new grounds, on the basis of which, the impugned termination had been effected and, therefore, the grounds for the termination were not subjects matter of dispute, before the Supreme Court stated earlier. However, this question has to be decided on merits, after trial by the Supreme Court In addition, plaintiffs have filed various documents to show that huge expenses are incurred by plaintiffs, for maintaining the building, payment of property taxes and other charges. Moreover, plaintiff no.1 has been the lessee, under the lease-deed and constructed the building, at its own expense. Plaintiff No.1 cannot be denied the benefits, as lessee. Thus, in my view, plaintiffs have got a good prima facie case. Plaintiffs are in possession of the premises and have been enjoying all the benefits as lessees for the last several years. Thus, the balance of convenience, also lies in their favour. For this reason, it can be safely said that in case, plaintiffs are denied the benefits as a lessee, then, they will suffer an irreparable loss and injury. As can be seen from the above order the Court was of the opinion that proper issues would require to be framed and there are serious questions to be tried. As per the Union of India, the impugned termination was based on new grounds after the judgment of the Supreme Court. However, considering the fact that Express Newspapers was in possession as a lessee and constructed the building at its own expense, the Court felt that the benefits of a lessee for the last several years cannot be denied. The Court then stayed the impugned notice. Thus, presently, the notice terminating the lease and re-entering the premises, is not in operation. A perusal of the above order would show that the tenants were permitted to continue paying the rent to their landlord, namely, Express Newspapers and the applications were disposed of. Both the orders were challenged before the Division Bench. The Division Bench considered the entire matter and vide order disposed of the appeals. The findings of the Division Bench were that the Division Bench need not go into the question as to whether Justice Sen’s view is a minority view. The matter was left to be decided by the Trial Court even as a preliminary issue. The injunction granted ought to have had imposed certain conditions in regard to the rents which were being paid by the sub-tenants. The Single Judge had not considered the imposition of certain conditions and hence other similar applications were remanded in there terms. We leave the said question open, but for that reason we consider it necessary to remand I.A. 145/88 as well as other I.As to the learned Trial Judge to enable him to consider whether any further directions in regard to the rents are necessary here. Submit