: 1 : chs-833-10-c=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER OF SUMMONS NO. 833 OF 2010 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.338 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION NO.116 OF 2008 Shriram Chits (MAH) Ltd. .. Disputant v/s. Ashwin Pratp Varde & Anr. .. Opponents And Mrs. Madhuri Pratap Varde .. Applicant ......... Mr. Pritish Amolik i/by Saikumar Pathrudu for disputant Mr. Himanshu Dasondi for applicant ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. : 1. The present chamber summons is taken out for raising of warrant of attachment dated 7th May, 2010 as regards two properties namely residential premises situate at 1/594, : 2 : chs-833-10-c=.sxw Mehrabad, Warden Road, Mumbai–400 026 and business premises situate at 3A/4-D, Raghavwadi, French Bridge, Opera House, Mumbai. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. The applicant claims that residential premises originally stood in the name of husband of the applicant by name Pratap Varde and by oral arrangement, on 7th May, 1994 said Pratap Varde relinquished rights in respect of said residential premises in favour of the applicant. It is noticed that by document dated 23rd July, 1998 said act of relinquishment was confirmed by execution of a document titled as memorandum of family arrangement dated 23rd July, 1998. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that on account of this document dated 23rd July 1998, the applicant is the owner of the residential premises. Therefore, the said property cannot be attached in execution of a decree passed against 4 opponents. It was conceded by Counsel for the applicant that as of today. Pratap Varde continues to be the member of the society. According to him necessary documents were executed for transfer of the residential premises in the name of the applicant. However, it is noticed that they are not lodged with the Co-operative society. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that though the name of : 3 : chs-833-10-c=.sxw Pratap Varde stands in the record of co-operative society, the applicant is the owner of the said premises and, therefore, it cannot be attached. 2. The stand of the present applicant that she is the owner of the residential premises cannot be accepted because in the record of the Society, name of Pratap Varde is registered as a member. The family agreement dated 23rd July, 1998 has not been given full effect. If it was the intention of the parties to act upon the said document, nothing prevented the applicant from having her name recorded in the books of the society. As of today, said Pratap Varde continues to be the member of the Co- operative society. Hence, I hold that the present applicant cannot styled herself as the owner of the flat. If this be so, she is not entitled to apply for raising of the warrant of attachment as regards the said residential premises. 3. So far as the business premises is concerned, the applicant has annexed tenancy agreement, which shows that the applicant is the tenant in respect of the premises. As per the tenancy agreement, rent receipt was to be issued in : 4 : chs-833-10-c=.sxw the trade name of the applicant “W. Lanu & Co. “. The rent receipt issued by the landlord in the name of the said company is produced. This, in my view, is sufficient to accept the claim of the applicant that she is the tenant in respect of the business premises. Hence, the warrant of attachment levied on the business premisess will have to be raised as the said property is wrongly attached. In view of the above, chamber summons is dismissed by passing following order. ORDER (i) Chamber summons is dismissed so far as the residential premises situate at 1/594, Mehrabad, Warden Road, Mumbai–400 026. (ii) Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) so far as business premises situate at 3A/4-D, Raghavwadi, French Bridge, Opera House, Mumbai. (iii)There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)