MUMBAI, July 30 -- The Bombay High Court has restrained publishers and digital and social media platforms from using words like "unlucky, haunted, cursed or ill-omened" to describe the iconic Aashirwad bungalow in Bandra, which became synonymous with the rise and fall of Bollywood superstar Rajesh Khanna. Granting ad-interim relief to industrialist Shashi Kiran Shetty, who bought the Carter Road property in 2014, a single-judge bench of justice Arif Doctor said that such descriptions are "clearly defamatory" and affect the petitioner's "right to live peacefully and in dignity". The sea-facing bungalow has become the subject of decades-old folklore linking it to the career trajectories of three celebrity owners. Originally owned by actor Bharat Bhushan in the 1950s, it was later bought by actor Rajendra Kumar, before Rajesh Khanna purchased it in the early 1970s. As Khanna's popularity soared, Aashirwad became a landmark, with thousands of fans gathering outside to catch a glimpse of the actor. Following the subsequent decline in the careers of Bhushan, Kumar and especially Khanna, rumours that the property was "haunted" or "cursed" persisted for years. Khanna lived in the bungalow until his death in 2012. His family sold the property to Shetty for about Rs.90 crore in 2014. Shetty later demolished the old bungalow and built a modern residence on the site, retaining the name Aashirwad. In his petition filed earlier this year, Shetty stated that despite the change in ownership and redevelopment of the property, online articles, posts, and videos claim that the bungalow would always be known as Rajesh Khanna's Aashirwad and describe it as "haunted, cursed, and ill-omened". He argued that the damage these publications have caused him and his family has affected his fundamental right to live with dignity and privacy. Senior counsel Birendra Saraf and advocates Athira Sajan and Vaibhav Charalwal, appearing for Shetty, pointed out articles stating that Aashirwad is "one of the most haunted places in India". They said that several publications and platforms were issued notices in January and February to take down such articles and posts, but they continue to circulate online. They also submitted that unauthorised photography and videography of the bungalow using zoom lenses and recording devices continues to infringe upon the family's right to privacy. The court took note of Google's response to the notices, in which the company said it was not responsible for content appearing in search results and would remove material only if directed by a court. Holding that the publications are "wholly unjustified" and "in the nature of creating sensationalism" at the cost of the petitioner "for no fault of his own", the court said that Shetty had made out a case for interim relief. It ordered the defendants to refrain from publishing similar material and to remove the content identified in the suit, while granting them three weeks to file their replies. The matter will be heard next on August 21....