MP 1 CAA371_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 371 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 252 OF 2011 Mr. Zubin Noshirwan Kamdin ... Applicant Versus Mr. Farrokh Noshirwan Kamdin and another ... Respondents Mr. S. G. Ghogre, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. M. S. Karnik, Advocate i/b. Mahimtura & Co. for Respondents. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 P. C. : The Trial Court has refused the prayer made by the plaintiff (applicant herein) seeking injunction against defendants (respondents herein) restraining them from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in suit room Nos. 1 and 2 shown in the map annexed to the plaint. However, the Trial Court has recorded a statement made by defendants on 19.01.2011 that they had not obstructed use and occupation over the common area and not intending to obstruct or block plaintiff’s access in common area. The statement so made was accepted and such undertaking given to the Trial Court is to remain binding on the parties. 2. It is not disputed that the tenancy rights vest in the family after demise of mother. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is entitled to continue with the tenancy and the tenancy rights vest in him. The assertion made by the plaintiff has been controverted by defendants. It is also a matter of record that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are brothers inter se. Considering the relationship and facts and circumstances, plaintiff and defendants are MP 2 CAA371_11 entitled to enjoyment of the tenanted property, and both, cannot restrain each other from enjoying the possession of the tenanted premises. The proper injunction that ought to have been granted by the Trial Court is the injunction against ouster. Both, the plaintiff and defendant are not entitled to oust anybody out of the possession of the suit premises until disposal of the application. 3. The civil application stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M. BORDE, J)