1 ao1172-ca1510-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1172 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 974 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1512 OF 2010 Zubair S. Botawala .. Appellant v/s. Aiyub Ahmed Botawala .. Respondent .... Mr. K. Tambali a/w. Mr. Rohit Pandey i/b. M/s. Dhiren H. Shah for the Appellant. Mr. Naushad Engineer a.w, Ms. Aakanksha Thakkar i/b. M/s. Purnand & Co. for Respondent. .... CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2010. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admittedly, the Appellant, who is the original Defendant, and the Plaintiff/Respondent are members of the Botawala Family, said Botawala family is beneficiary of the Botawala Private Trust. 2 ao1172-ca1510-10 Said Botawala Private Trust is, in turn, tenants of Botawala Public Charitable Trust, which is the owner of the suit building consisting of eight bed rooms, kitchen, common hall etc. Admittedly, the Plaintiff and Defendant both are beneficiaries of the same and are in possession of certain bed rooms. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed Short Cause Suit No. 924 of 2010 to restrain the Defendant/Appellant from putting partition or from allowing any third person to use or occupy the property. The Defendant also took out a Notice of Motion No. 974 of 2010 with prayers (a) and (b). Prayer (a) was to restrain the Defendant from sub dividing, partitioning, sub-letting any part or portion of the property or allowing any part or portion of the said premises to be used and occupied by any servants, strangers and/or outsiders and/or any person other than a family member. Prayer clause (b) was for appointment of Commissioner to make inspection and to submit a report. The trial Court allowed the said Application. As far as clause (b) is concerned, it is already complied. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant could not point out what is illegality or error in the impugned order, nor he could point out what difficulty it would cause to him. After some 3 ao1172-ca1510-10 discussion at the bar, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Appeal and Application stand disposed of by the following directions : i) The Plaintiff/Respondent shall not prohibit the Defendant/Appellant from allowing one maid servant engaged for the purpose of attending to his mother to stay in the room of the mother or in the kitchen, but such maid servant shall not be permitted to bring other members of her family in the said premises. However, there will be no restriction if any servant of the Defendant comes in the premises for service with condition that after completion of work, he or she shall leave the premises, and shall not be allowed to stay in the said premises. ii) The Defendant/Appellant shall not put up any partition nor shall approach the Municipal Corporation or the Botawala Public Charitable Trust for partition. However, the 4 ao1172-ca1510-10 Defendant/Appellant shall be at liberty to approach the Botawala Private Trust with such a request, as if the Botawala Private Trust agrees, it may approach the landlord seeking permission for putting any partition in the premises. iii) The Appeal and Application stand disposed of accordingly. [ J. H. BHATIA, J. ]