1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No.208 of 2009 IN Notice of Motion No.3657 of 2008 IN Court Receiver s Report No.145 of 2008 IN Suit No.543 of 2000 Smt.Prafullata R. Varhadi .. .. Plaintiff v/s. Pushpalata C. Chury & ors. .. .. Defendants A n d Tarabai Anant Dorle .. .. 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 2 sealed the premises being Room No.123 of chawl No.7 of the suit chawl being Anaji Master chawl, be removed and the possession of the suit chawl be restored to the Applicant. 2.The parties filed the consent decree. The consent decree is stated to be collusively filed. Under the consent decree, the parties have sought to redevelop the entire property bypassing the provisions of MHADA. Under the same consent decree, a Receiver, who was appointed pending the suit, has been directed to take possession from certain parties who were stated to have come into possession of the respective rooms claimed by them after the appointment of the Court Receiver. 3.The Applicant in Chamber Summons No.209 of 2009 is a party whose possession was taken by the Court Receiver on the premise that she came into the premises after the appointment of the Court Receiver. The Applicant has relied upon and produced before the Court the agreement entered into by and between herself and the landladies of the building represented by their Constituted Attorney one C.G. Chury. The said Constituted Attorney is the husband of Defendant No.1. The agreement is dated 20.6.1994. The Court Receiver has been appointed on 22.2.2000. The tenancy agreement has also been signed by the Advocate of the landlady 3 who happens to be the Advocate of Defendant No.1 in the suit. 4.Consequent upon the tenancy agreement, a ration card has been obtained by the Applicant on 1.4.2000 and the rent receipts have been issued by the landlady from time to time of Rs.35/- per month. Several of such rent receipts are produced. The Applicant is seen to have come into possession prior to the appointment of the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver could not have taken forcible possession from the Applicant. Whatever be the rights of the parties to the suit against the Applicant, would have to be agitated in the competent Court. The possession of the Applicant shall have to be restored. 5.The argument of Mr.Warunjikar on behalf of the Plaintiff that it is based upon such contracts of transfer of tenancy executed by the husband of Defendant No.1 that the Plaintiff was driven to file the suit itself shows that these transfers had taken place prior to the filing of the suit and, therefore, the transferees based upon these transfers cannot be evicted as parties in unlawful possession who came into possession after the appointment of the Court Receiver. 6.Consequently, prayers (a) and (b) of the Chamber 4 Summons are granted. The Court Receiver shall remove his seal from the suit premises and restore the possession of room No.123 in the suit chawl to the Applicant. 7.Parties concerned and the Court Receiver to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)