1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No.289 of 2009 IN Suit No.543 of 2000 Smt.Prafullata R. Varhadi .. .. Plaintiff v/s. Pushpalata C. Chury & ors. .. .. Defendants A n d Sitabai Sonu Tole .. .. Applicant Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Plaintiff. Mr.R.V. Govilkar for Applicant. Mr.P.G. Lad, AGP for MHADA. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 23rd June, 2010 P.C. : 1.The Applicant has applied for a declaration that the consent decree dated 18.12.2008 passed in Appeal (Lodging) No.738 of 2008 in terms of the consent terms signed by the parties in the suit is not executable against the Applicant and the Court Receiver, who sealed her premises being Room No.108 of chawl No.5 of the suit chawl being Anaji Master chawl, be removed and the possession of the suit chawl be restored to the 2 Applicant. 2.The Applicant claims to have been in possession of the suit premises in the suit building being room No.108 in the suit chawl since about 1971. The Court Receiver has been appointed on 22.2.2000. The Applicant claims that under the aforesaid consent decree, which has been collusively obtained, the parties seek to recover possession from several of the tenants without following due legal process for recovery of possession and hence the Applicant has applied for a stay of the consent decree. The Applicant would be entitled to have a stay of the consent decree and of the Court Receiver acting thereupon only qua the Applicant s own premises. 3.It is argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that the stay application is premature and that only after the Court Receiver takes possession, can the Applicant take recourse to law and that the application is in the nature of obstruction proceedings which the Applicant cannot take. It is seen that the Court Receiver has already taken possession from two occupants of the suit chawl under the aforesaid decree dated 18.12.2008. The Applicant, therefore, apprehends that possession of her chawl also would be taken from her. 4.The Applicant has shown the Court that she, through her 3 predecessor-in-title, her husband, has been in possession of the suit chawl since 1971 and the Court Receiver cannot take possession on the ground that she is an illegal occupant who has been brought into possession after the appointment of the Court Receiver. The Applicant has relied upon certain documents, including the old electricity bill of the months of May to July 1971. The electricity bill is in the name of her husband in respect of room No.108 in the suit chawl. The Applicant has also relied upon a ration card. The ration card is in the name of her husband initially issued on 5.6.1976. Later a new ration card has been issued in the name of the Applicant on 21.3.2000. The Applicant is seen to have been in possession prior to the appointment of Court Receiver. The Applicant s possession cannot be taken by the Court Receiver. The apprehension of the Applicant is legitimately made out as the Court Receiver has already taken possession of her neighbour which is seen to have been wrongfully taken. 5.Consequently the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought. The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). 6.The Court Receiver shall not take any steps to recover possession of the suit premises from the Applicant. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.) 4