1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5075 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1921 OF 2008 Vishakha Laxman Natekar & Anr. ... Appellants Vs. Raigad Nagar Sahakari Gruha Nirman Soc. & Anr. ... Respondents ..... Mr.N.V.Gangal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.J.Ghogare, Advocate, for the respondent no.3. ..... CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 13th August, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri. Vitthal Natekar was the original tenant of suit premises since 1942. According to the plaintiffs/appellants in 1968, as per desire of Vitthal Natekar, the tenancy was transferred in the name of his nephew Laxman Natekar. Since then Laxman and his brother Sudam were living in the said house. According to the plaintiff, Gangadhar was living as a gratuitous licencee on the basis of permission given by Laxman. In the year 2004, the proposal came for redevelopment of building and thereafter the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant-respondent no. 2, who is son of 2 Gangadhar to vacate the premises. On his refusal, the suit was filed for mandatory injunction which came to be dismissed. 3. Even though, the appeal is admitted, in view of the given circumstances and the fact that defendant no.2 and his father were continuously living in this house since 1968, when for the first time, tenancy was transferred in the name of Laxman , I do not find it to be a fit case to grant any interim injunction whereby the defendant would be removed from the possession. Therefore, application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)