1 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 929 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1340 OF 1994 Kishore J. Chheda and another ... Plaintiffs Versus Smt. Maniben C. Dalal ... Defendant Mr. Mohan P. Takwade a/w Mrs. S. M. Tekwade and Jayesh Gade for the plaintiff/applicant Mr. A. P. Sathe for the respondent/defendant ... CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 15th September, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This motion is taken out by the plaintiff for striking of the defences of the defendant on the ground that the defendant has committed breach of the interim order dated 7th April, 1994, passed by this Court in a draft Notice of Motion, which has been subsequently confirmed by this Court by order dated 19th February, 1994 in Notice of Motion no. 1001 of 1994. By those order, relief in terms of prayer clause (a) was granted. Prayer clause (a) of the motion states that the defendants be restrained from disposing of, selling, transferring, encumbering, alienating, parting with position or creating any third party rights in piece or partial of the land or Plot no.227 of Dadar Matunga Estate of the Municipal Corporation, bearing C.S. No.214/10 of Matunga Division together with the building or structure standing 2 thereon and known as "Chandramanee" and previously known as Vishwas Bhuvan" at F' Ward No.7486(2), Dadar Road, Matunga (Central Railway), Mumbai 400 019. 3. In para 6 of the affidavit in support of the motion, it is stated that the defendant, along with his family members, started residing in Flat no.8 of the said building and this amounts to breach of the order of injunction. I fail to see how this would amount to breach of the order of injunction. Order of injunction restrains the defendant from creating any third party interest/rights. It does not restrain the defendant from using the premises by himself. The counsel for the plaintiff, however, submitted that the defendant accepted the surrender of the tenancy from the previous tenant and he started residing in the Flat No.8. Accepting the surrender of previous tenancy, in my view, it does not amount to transfer of property by defendant but amount to acquisition of the property by the him and thus, does not amount to breach of the interim injunction. 4. Motion is, dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)