1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1452 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 1221 OF 2006 United Housing Pvt. Ltd., ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Shri Digambar Jain Chitoda Padmavati Mitra Mandal, Mumbai & Ors. ... Defendants. --- Ms. Jyoti Chavan for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Satyen N. Vaishnawa a/w. Mr. R.D. Dave i/by M/s. N. N. Vaishnawa & Co. for the Defendants. --- CORAM : A. A. SAYED, J. DATED : JULY 10, 2009 P.C. : 1. The plaintiffs have taken out the above Notice of Motion for the following reliefs : a. that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit this Hon’ble Court be pleased to seal the suit premises and keep it under the lock and key of the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay; b. that pending the hearing and final disposal of 2 this suit this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, associates, or any other person claiming through them from carrying out any construction activity and or conducting a temple at the suit premises and /or any other kind of religious, social or any other kind of activity at the suit premises; c. that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, associates, or any other person claiming through them from entering the suit premises and or creating nuisance within a distance of 100 feet of the suit premises; d. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit this Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint Court Receiver High Court Bombay with all powers under Order XL of Civil Procedure Court over and in respect of the suit premises and put the Plaintiff in possession of the suit premises as his agent; 2. It is an admitted position that the suit premises are owned by the plaintiffs and the earlier tenant one Mr. T.C. Paul was carrying an automobile repair works/ garage in the said suit premises. Thus it is clear that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit premises and the suit premises in question are situate on the private property of the plaintiffs. There were several transactions interregnum and ultimately the defendant no. 1 3 claims to have come in possession of the suit premises under a Deed of Assignment dated 11.11.2005 executed between defendant no.1 and defendant no.5. After the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has come into force, Assignments are prohibited unless consent of the landlord is taken. A perusal of the Stamp Paper of the Deed of Assignment reveals that the Stamp Paper is not in the name of either of the defendant No.1 or the defendant No.5, which is contrary to Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. 3. By an ad-interim order dated 03rd of May, 2006 passed by this Court, the defendant nos. 1 to 5 have been injuncted from using the Suit premises for any other activity except shop premises. I see no reason to disturb the ad-interim order which was granted on 3rd of May, 2006 by this court, pending the disposal of the suit. The ad-interim order dated 03.05.2006 is thus confirmed and the defendants are, pending the suit, injuncted from using the suit premises for any other purpose than for shop as is mentioned in the Deed of Assignment. They are futher injuncted from parting with the possession and/or 4 inducting any third party in the suit premises pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit. 4. The notice of motion is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED,J.) .....