[ 1 ] IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 405 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3332 OF 2002 Smt. Zehrabibi Khan I. Durani and Ors. ... Plaintiffs. Vs. Sultana Amin Shaikh & Ors. ... Defendants. None for the plaintiffs. Mr. Mehul Shah i/by Bharat Joshi Advocate for the defendants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : May 5, 2009. : May 5, 2009. : May 5, 2009. P.C. 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendants, who are occupying the suit shop as agents of the Court Receiver, questioning the order dated 22nd February, 2007, passed by the Court Receiver fixing the royalty amount in respect of the suit shop at Rs. 11,000/- per month. 2. Learned Counsel for the defendants states that the valuation of royalty in respect of the suit shop at Rs. 11,000/- per month is exorbitant. The learned [ 2 ] Counsel points out that initially the valuation was fixed at Rs. 14,500/-, thereafter it was fixed at Rs. 2115.50 p. Subsequently there was yet another valuation, whereby the valuation was fixed at Rs. 11,111/- and which was rounded off at Rs. 11,000/- by the Court Receiver in arriving at royalty amount. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 11000/- has been demanded as and by way of royalty from the defendants by the Court Receiver. The learned Counsel submits that the defendants have with great difficulty been depositing Rs. 7,500/- per month pursuant to the ad-interim order of this Court, dated 24th January, 2008 in the above Chamber Summons. The learned Counsel submitted that the valuation of the royalty amount in respect of the suit shop is faulty and that the same cannot be more than the standard rent of the suit premises and that in any event the same cannot exceed Rs. 3000/- per month, which amount the defendants were depositing at one stage. 3. Learned Counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants are occupying the suit shop since prior to the year 1973 and they have already filed a Declaratory Suit in the Small Causes Court at Bandra, Mumbai to declare them as tenants of the suit shop and [ 3 ] they are depositing certain amounts in that Court towards the rent/compensation. 4. After having heard the learned Counsel for the defendants and on perusing the valuation reports and seeing the photographs of the suit shop produced by the Court Receiver and considering the size of the suit shop it does appear that the royalty amount of Rs. 11,000/- per month is rather excessive. 5. The learned Counsel, at this stage, upon taking instructions from defendant No.1, who is present in Court, fairly states that the defendants are ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards royalty without prejudice to their rights and contentions. In my view this amount seems to be fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the varied valuation reports which have been filed which valuation ranges from Rs. 2,115.50 p. to Rs. 14,500/- per month. I am inclined to accept this offer of Rs. 5,000/- per month of the defendants, particularly when there is discrepancy in the different valuation reports of experts and therefore a balance would have to be struck after considering the overall facts and circumstances. [ 4 ] 6. Accordingly it is directed that the defendants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month with the Court Receiver from the date of this order towards the royalty amount without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the matter. The amount paid earlier shall not be disturbed or adjusted. The Prothonotary and Senior Master shall give appropriate directions in respect of investments in Term Deposit of a Nationalised Bank, of the amounts deposited by the defendants standing to the credit of the suit. 7. The learned Counsel further submits that there is a proposal to acquire a portion of the suit shop for the purposes of road widening . In the event, such a proposal is implemented in future which affects the area of the suit shop, the defendants are at liberty to make such further application for reduction of the royalty amount. 8. In light of the above, the order dated 22.2.2007 of the Court Receiver is set aside and the Chamber Summons is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1022 OF 2006 IN SUITNO. 3332 OF 2002 Smt. Zehrabibi Khan I. Durani and Ors. ... Plaintiffs. Vs. Sultana Amin Shaikh & Ors. ... Defendants. None for the plaintiffs. Mr. Mehul Shah i/by Bharat Joshi Advocate for the defendants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : May 5, 2009. : May 5, 2009. : May 5, 2009. P.C. 1. Reply of the defendants is taken on record. 2. None appears on behalf of the Plaintiffs. 3. The Chamber Summons is dismissed for default. [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]