1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. SUIT NO.925 OF 1996 Superabrasive Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Rubina Shariff and others ..Defendants. .... Ms. J.M. Sidhwa with Mr. Mahesh Londhe i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. J.B. Mishra for Defendant No.1. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 14th February, 2008. P.C. : 1. This suit has been instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Plaintiff claims that the First Defendant has wrongfully deprived the Plaintiff of possession of certain premises being No.7-A/B, Ready money Terrace, Third Floor, 167, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai. On 8th April, 1996 an ad interim order was passed by a Learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice N.D. Vyas) appointing a Receiver. The Court directed that the Plaintiff shall be appointed as agent of the Receiver to remain in possession on usual terms and conditions but, without security and on payment of the same compensation that was payable under an 2 agreement dated 1st January, 1994 executed between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff and for the First and Second Defendants state that as a matter of fact there were two agreements with the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant respectively and that the total compensation that was payable was Rs.13,000/- per month. This position is not in dispute before the Court. The Notice of Motion was made absolute on 6th July, 1998 by consent of parties. Mr. Justice S.N. Variava (as His Lordship then was) however, clarified that the aforesaid order was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Parties also agreed that the Plaintiff would pay to the Receiver a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month as royalty and that the Receiver would handover the said amount to the First Defendant. 2. At this stage, it would be necessary to note that the contention of the First Defendant was that on the basis of a letter dated 21st October, 1995 executed by the Plaintiff, the First Defendant had taken over possession of the premises since there was a surrender by the Plaintiff. The authenticity of the letter is denied by the Plaintiff and the case of the Plaintiff is that the letter is a forged and fabricated document. The First Defendant had 3 instituted two suits in the City Civil Court viz. Suit Nos.7021 of 1995 and 7022 of 1995 respectively against the Plaintiff and Second Defendant, seeking relief to the effect that the First Defendant should not be dispossessed save and except by due process of law. This Court has been informed by the learned counsel that both the suits came to be dismissed for want of prosecution by an order dated 29th August, 1993 passed by the City Civil Court. The dismissal of the suits for want of prosecution has attained finality. 3. In the present suit, counsel appearing for the First Defendant has stated that the First Defendant has no objection to the Receiver being discharged and possession of the suit premises being handed over by the Receiver to the Plaintiff subject to the further statement of the First Defendant that the Plaintiff shall not be dispossessed save and except in accordance with a decree that may be passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a suit which the First Defendant proposes to institute for recovery of possession against the Plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid statement which has been made on behalf of the First Defendant, it is not necessary to keep the present suit pending any further. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff and counsel appearing for the First Defendant are 4 agreed to the following decree and order : i) The Court Receiver who is appointed in pursuance of the ad interim order dated 8th April, 1996 shall stand discharged and he shall handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff; ii) The First Defendant states that the possession of the Plaintiff shall not be disturbed save and except in accordance with due process of law. The First Defendant would be at liberty to institute a suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction for securing recovery of the premises; iii) Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff states that compensation at the same rate of Rs.13,000/- shall be paid to the First Defendant from month to month. This would be without prejudice to the right of the First Defendant to apply before the appropriate Court for necessary orders in regard to the modification of the compensation payable by the Plaintiff. It would be open to the First Defendant to apply to the Receiver for the disbursement of any amount that is in deposit with the Receiver towards arrears of compensation in the event that there is no order of attachment or 5 restraint operating in relation to the aforesaid amount. The Court Receiver shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be a decree and order in the aforesaid terms with the consent of the parties.