1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO. 12002 OF 2010 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 951 OF 2010 Shri Mohan Tanaji Agare ... Appellant/Orig.defendant vs. Namdev Sonu Agare & Ors. ... Respondents/Orig.Plaintiffs Ms. Hina A. Mody,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Redekar,Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th May, 2010. P.C. 1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board. A.O. be registered. 2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the pleadings of the plaintiffs in the previous Suit No.5711 of 2001, it appears that the trial Court has misunderstood the order of the perpetual injunction. In fact, in that suit, the plaintiffs had admitted that the rent receipt of the Room No.1, Chawl No.2, Mohammed Seth Chawl, was issued previously in the name of Tukaram, who is uncle of the defendant no.1 – Mohan Tanaji Agare. After the death of Tukaram, rent receipt was transferred in the name of Tanaji, father of defendant 2 no.1. However, according to the plaintiffs, none of them had ever claimed to be exclusive tenants because the room was taken on rent for the benefit of the people of village Agrewadi and the people from that village, who used to come to Mumbai and had no other place to reside, used to stay in the said room temporarily. It was contended that the defendant no.1 was trying to dispossess them illegally. In that situation, the Court had perpetually restrained the defendant no.1 not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs and not to dispossess them without following due process of law. That does not mean that the defendant No.1 was prohibited from staying in the said room. 3. In the Notice of motion taken out in S.C. Suit No.951 of 2010 by the plaintiffs, the trial Court observed that in view of the earlier decree, the defendant No.1 is not in possession. The Notice of Motion is still pending and fixed for reply of the defendant. According to the defendant No.1, who is the appellant before this Court, taking benefit of that observation in the impugned order dated 21.4.2010, the plaintiffs have ousted him from the said room. 4. Taking into consideration the circumstances noted above, it is clarified that the defendant No.1 can stay in the said room along with the plaintiffs and others from that village, but the defendant No.1 cannot claim exclusive 3 possession over the same. 5. With these observations, the Appeal is hereby disposed of. The trial Court shall hear and dispose of the Notice of Motion on its own merits.All contentions of the parties are kept open. 6. As the Appeal has been disposed of, C.A. Stamp No.12019 of 2010 also stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)