1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.267 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.317 OF 2009 Sushil Agarwal & ors ..Appellants V/s Mahadev Chaudhary & ors ..Respondents Mr.Mahesh Menon i/b.M/s.Mahesh Menon & Co., Advocate, for the appellants Mr.Mahadev Chaudhary in person Mr.Ram Laxmipalli, Advocate, for the respondent No.2 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. . This appeal is directed against the Order dated 2nd February, 2009, by which order the Notice of Motion filed by the appellants came to be rejected. 2. The appellants are the owners of the two flats being Flat Nos.201 and 202 admeasuring 67.15 Sq.meter and 47.87 Sq.meter 2 on the 2nd floor, “C” wing in the building known as Lake Pleasant, Lake Homes, Phase-II, Powai, Mumbai – 72. The appellants had filed the above Notice of Motion for temporary injunction restraining the respondents/original defendants from interfering with the use and occupation of the suit premises by the appellants, their agents, servants and licensees. 3. It is an undisputed position that the appellants have entered into Leave and License Agreement with one Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited in respect of the said flats. Clause 9(ii) of the said Leave and License is relevant and is reproduced hereunder : “That the Licensee shall use the Licenced Premises, for the residential use of its executives as transit camp/guest house and shall pay the charges of consumption of electricity and water to the Licensors as per bills received by the Licensee” 4. The flats in question were to be used only for residential purpose. The appellants by the said Leave and License Agreement have allowed the said Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited to use it as Guest House. The flat purchasers of the said building have constituted themselves into a Co-operative Housing Society. There is 3 correspondence on record to indicate that the Society is objecting to the said user. The Trial Court in the said conspectus of facts came to a conclusion that the flats being used as a transit camp/guest house was in violation of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats and Apartments Act. The Trial Court, therefore, did not deem it fit to grant the equitable relief of injunction as the user of the said flats was in violation of one for which they were meant. 5. Having perused the impugned order, in my view, no case for interference by this Court in its Appellate jurisdiction is made out. Hence, the above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) 4