spb/- 1 wp4386-4391-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4386 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4391 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4392 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4393 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4394 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. spb/- 2 wp4386-4391-11.sxw --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4396 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4397 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4398 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4399 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4400 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. spb/- 3 wp4386-4391-11.sxw --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4402 OF 2011 Mr. Ravi Talwar and others ... Petitioners. V/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar a/with S/Shri Milan Bhise, Amit Bhave, Vinod Sakpal i/by Millan Bhise & Co. for the Petitioners in W.P.Nos. 4386/11 & 4391 of 2011 to 4400 of 2011 & 4402/11. Mr. M.S. Menon with Asif Ali. Siddique for Respondent No.2 in W.P. Nos. 4386/11 & 4391 of 2011 to 4400 of 2011. Ms. Pankhuri i/by Legal Chambers for Respondents Nos. 3 to 11 in W.P.Nos.4386/11 & 4391/11 to 4400/11 & 4402/11. --- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 18th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 All these petitions involve a common question of law and facts and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order. 2 In a suit for dissolution of M/s.Mathuradas and Company, a partnership firm, and accounts a preliminary decree for dissolution has been passed and final decree proceedings are pending. In the suit, Court spb/- 4 wp4386-4391-11.sxw Receiver, High Court, Bombay was appointed as the Receiver of the suit property known as Mathuradas Colony situate at Kole Kalyan, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-29. The property was in occupation of more than 100 tenants. The Court Receiver, therefore, did not take physical possession of the suit property but he took symbolic possession of the property in or around the year 1981. On 4th March, 1982, the Court Receiver displayed a notice on the property that he was appointed as the Court Receiver and that the rent should be paid to the Rent Collector appointed by him. There is some dispute as to whether the Receiver has actually displayed the notice on the property or not. However, it is not necessary to go into that controversy for the purpose of decision of these writ petitions. 3 The present petitioners, who are some of the partners of the firm Mathuradas & Company, took out a Notice of Motion No. 3613 of 2005, alleging therein that the respondents to the Motion were not the original tenants but were illegal occupants inducted by the original tenants after appointment of the Receiver. They contended that the original tenants had no right to transfer tenancy and that the occupation of the respondents was illegal and unauthorized as they had come in possession of the property illegally after the appointment of the Receiver without the consent of the parties and/ or without the consent of the Court spb/- 5 wp4386-4391-11.sxw Receiver and /or without the permission of the Court. Accordingly, notices were issued to the respondents to the Motion and they were heard in the matter. Almost all the respondents to the Motion contended that they were original tenants and/or had come in occupation of the different portion of the property prior to the appointment of the Court Receiver. They contended that they cannot be evicted in a summary manner in the Motion. 4 After considering the documents produced by the parties to the Motion and other material on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that some of the respondents to the Motion were in occupation of the property prior to the date of appointment of the Court Receiver while some had come in possession after the appointment of the Receiver and without permission of the Court Receiver or the Court. Accordingly, the court allowed the Motion partly and directed to evict all those respondents who had come in possession of the property after the appointment of the Court Receiver. The court, however, dismissed the Motion in respect of those respondents who had come in possession prior to the appointment of the Court Receiver Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the motion against the respondents who were in possession of the property since before the appointment of the Court spb/- 6 wp4386-4391-11.sxw Receiver, the original defendants in the suit have filed these petitions. 5 It may be noted that the enquiry before the court was restricted to find out whether any of the respondents to the Motion had come in possession of the property after the Court Receiver was appointed as the Receiver and without leave of the court and/or without the permission of the Court Receiver. That issue has been decided by the trial court, on the basis of the evidence adduced and the finding recorded by the court being a possible finding of fact, it is not open for this court to interfere in it in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It may again be noted that originally the suit was for dissolution of the partnership firm and the Court Receiver was appointed as the Receiver by consent of the parties. The respondents to the Motion were not parties to the suit and that they were not concerned with the difference and disputes between the partners inter-se. The suit was not for eviction of the respondents under the Rent Act. The preliminary decree in the suit is for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. The only question that was required to be considered by the court was whether the respondents to the motion had come in possession of the property before or after the appointment of the Court Receiver as Receiver. The Court after holding a summary enquiry has held that the spb/- 7 wp4386-4391-11.sxw respondents in these petitions were in possession of the suit property since before the appointment of the Court Receiver as the Receiver. Needless to say that if the respondents are illegal occupants of the suit property, it is open for the owners or the landlords of the property to file a substantive suit for their eviction. No interference is called for in the impugned order. 6 Accordingly, all the writ petitions are rejected summarily. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]