1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1740 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.237 OF 1987 Sherry Motilal Nagpal & ors. .. Plaintiffs versus Sheela Harilal Nagpal & ors. .. Defendants And The Learned Court Receiver, High Court Bombay .. Respondent And Gannon Dunkerley Holdings Pvt.Ltd. .. Applicant ... Mr.Rajeev Ravi i/b Bilawala & Co. for the plaintiff. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Rajesh Patil i/b Mahesh Jani & Co. for the applicant. Mr.A.K. Goel for defendant no.3. Mr.R.S.Kelaskar, Assistant on behalf of Court Receiver. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :30th June 2009 2 P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, appearing parties and the learned Court Receiver. 2. This motion is taken out by the applicant who claims to be a tenant of a flat forming part of the suit property for a direction to the Court Receiver to carry out certain repairs. 3. The suit building known as "Dev Ashish" originally belonged to Mr.Nagpal who created some trusts. The plaintiffs and the defendants who are the descendants/near relatives of Mr.Nagpal claim to be the beneficiaries under the trusts. There is a dispute between the beneficiaries. Plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants, all of whom are members of Nagpal family. In the suit, the court receiver has been appointed as the receiver of the suit property. The receiver however is not in actual possession as the suit property as different parts of it are let out to the different tenants. The present applicant claims to be one of the tenants. The claim of tenancy of the present applicant is disputed by the parties and they claim that the applicant is not the tenant but is illegally inducted by one of the original tenants. 3 4. The applicant who claims to be a tenant of the suit claims that the flat is in bad shape and requires urgent repairs. He has therefore sought direction to the receiver to carry out the repairs. The plaintiffs have strongly opposed the prayer on several grounds. 5. Even if for a moment it is assumed that the applicant is a tenant, in my view, he is not entitled to the order sought for. The plaintiffs, apart from denying the tenancy of the applicant contend that the suit flat is in good condition and therefore no repairs thereto are necessary. Under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, landlords are bound to maintain the rented premises in tenentable repairs. If the landlord fails to carry out the tenentable repairs, a tenant is entitled to approach the Rent Court (Small Causes Court in the present case) for necessary directions to the landlords to carry out the repairs. The receiver appointed by the court in the present case represents the landlords. The right of the applicant to have the suit premises repaired is based on two grounds. Firstly that he is a tenant and secondly that the repairs are necessary. Both these facts are disputed questions of facts. The question whether the applicant is a tenant and whether the premises require 4 repairs are matters which can be decided by the Rent Court Small Causes Court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. That dispute cannot be decided in the present suit which relates to the interse dispute between the landlords. For these reasons, motion is dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J)