( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.586 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.586 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.586 OF 2007 IN IN IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1365 OF 2006 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1365 OF 2006 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1365 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT NO.230 OF 2005 SUIT NO.230 OF 2005 SUIT NO.230 OF 2005 Mrs.Taruna Parikh .. Appellant V/s ABN Amro Bank N.V. .. Respondent Mr.S.M.Kamble i/by Mr.A.A.Kocharekar for the Appellant. Mr.P.K.Samdani with Mr.V.G.Munshi i/by M/s.RES Legal for Respondent. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 4th February, 2008. DATE : 4th February, 2008. DATE : 4th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. On number of occasions the learned Counsel for the Appellant had sought adjournments to settle the matter, however, the settlement could not be arrived at. By this Appeal the Appellant is challenging an order dated 1.3.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the valuation arrived at by the Court Receiver based on the valuation report from Rs.1.47 lakhs to 1.30 lakhs. 2. It is very pertinent to note that right from 27.5.2002 the Appellant is having Rs.1.15 crore which has been deposited by the Respondent, with the condition that as soon as the vacant possession of the said flat premises situated at Peddar Road, Malabar Hill, is handed over on the expiry of the leave & licence period, the appellant will return the said sum of Rs.1.15 crore without interest. The said leave and licence agreement ( 2 ) dated 27th May, 2002 expired on 31st March, 2004. It appears that the Respondent Company had made a request to extend the time because the occupant therein one Rohit Sahani was unable to find alternate accommodation, and accordingly, the Appellant had extended time upto 30th June, 2004. Even for the aforesaid period due compensation has been paid. The premises was vacated and the possession was tendered to the Appellant on 30th June, 2004. However, the Appellant refused to tender security deposit of Rs.1.15 crore. The premises were therefore kept under the lock and key by the Respondent. It appears that the Appellant had forcibly taken possession sometime prior to 29th March, 2005 and she is in possession of the said flat. 3. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Respondent moved this Court and also sought for an appointment of the Court Receiver and this Court by an order dated 16th March, 2006 recorded clearly that the Appellant has still not returned the said sum of Rs.1.15 crore and was enjoying the possession of the said flat and the said sum of Rs.1.15 crore right from 27th May, 2002 without interest. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was pleased to appoint the Court Receiver and appointed the Appellant as an agent of the Court Receiver subject to the payment of royalty based on the market rate. Pursuant to the said order, the Court Receiver has taken formal possession of the said flat and the Appellant is continuing in possession as an agent of the Court Receiver. ( 3 ) 4. The Court Receiver after obtaining various valuation reports finally fixed the market rate at Rs.1.47 lakhs p.m. which the learned Single Judge reduced to Rs.1.30 lakhs. In the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 1st March, 2007 which is impugned in this Appeal, we find that in Paragraph No.8 of the said order the learned Single Judge has observed that in the same building another similar agreement was entered into with regard to a similar flat on 29th December, 2005 (which is in fact more than two years back), which yielded a monthly licence fee of Rs.28,000/- with a security deposit of Rs.1.10 crores as well as a Bank Guarantee of Rs.2.50 crores as an additional security. There is no doubt that the appellant is enjoying Rs.1.15 crore without paying interest right from 27th May, 2002. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness in the order of the learned Single Judge modifying the royalty amount to Rs.1.30 lakhs. Appeal is totally devoid of merits and hence the same stands dismissed. 5. It is made clear that in the event the appellant were to make a single default in payment of Royalty of Rs.1.30 lakhs per month, the Court Receiver to take immediate possession of the said premises. (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)