1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Amk COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 75 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1777 OF 2004 Salma Asgarali Makati & Ors. .. Plaintiffs Vs. Shabir Shaikh Shamsuddin Pachorawala & Anr .. Defendants Ms. Mridula Bhatia with Anita Castelino with Mr. Ali Zaidy Tasneem Zaidy for Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Y. R. Chaudhari for Plaintiff No.5. Mr. Sunil Gangan i/b RMG Law for Defendant No.1. Mr. V. Mannadia for Respondent No.1. Mr. Rohan P. Surve i/b Madhav Jamdar for Respondent No.3 Mr. F. H. Shaikh, Section Officer representative of the Court Receiver is present. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 9th June, 2010. P.C. 1. One of the suit properties is a shed of 7000 sq. ft. at Ghodbunder village. Plaintiff No.1 was admittedly tenanted the said premises by the father of the parties during his lifetime. She had given the said premises on leave and licence basis to one Salmabai Makati. She was earning Rs.18,000/- p.m. These facts have been admitted and in fact set out by Defendant No.1 in para 11 (XI) of his W.S. 2 2. The licencee has vacated the premises. 3. Defendant No.1 has been appointed agent of the Court Receiver in respect of the premises in his actual physical possession or lying vacant by the order dated 15.12.2005. On the date of the order this premises was neither in the actual physical possession of Defendant No.1 nor was it lying vacant. Defendant No.1 was, therefore, not appointed agent in respect of this property. 4. The property has now become vacant. Both the parties claim to be handed back the property. 5. This property was tenanted to Plaintiff No.1. It is vacated by her licencee. She, therefore, claims to be returned the property. 6. Since Defendant No.1 has been appointed agent of the Court Receiver in respect of vacant properties also, he claims return of that property. 7. Para 11 (XI) of the W.S. of Defendant No.1 shows the circumstances under and for which the property was specifically tenanted to Plaintiff No.1 by the father during his lifetime. It was for the benefit of all the daughters of the deceased. The deceased had five daughters. They are five Plaintiffs. Hence, Plaintiff No.1 holds the property in trust for her four other sisters also. One of these sisters being 3 Plaintiff No.5 is mentally handicapped. Her guardian has been appointed in the suit. Plaintiff No.1 holds this property for the ward of the Court also. This property was not in charge of, or management or control by Defendant No.1. Consequently Defendant No.1 could not have been and was not appointed agent of the Court Receiver in respect of this property. 8. When the licencee of the property has vacated the property, Defendant No.1 cannot be put in possession of such property. Plaintiff No.1 alone can be put in possession of such property. She would have to hold it for the benefit of all the daughters of her deceased father. The Court Receiver’s Report would be required to be considered accordingly. Hence the following order :- :: O R D E R :: 1. The Court Receiver shall return the property being the shed of 7000/- sq. ft. at Ghodbunder village which has been vacated by the M/s. Eden Textronics Pvt. Ltd., the licencee of Plaintiff No.1 to Plaintiff No.1. 2. Plaintiff No.1 shall hold the said property for the benefit of the Plaintiffs. 3. Plaintiff No.1 shall not part with possession, transfer, encumber or create any third party rights in the said property pending the suit. 4. There an excess amount paid by Eden Textronics Pvt. Ltd. to the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver shall 4 invest the said amount in the Fixed Deposit Receipt of any nationalized bank pending the suit. 5. Order with regard to prayer (c) is already passed. 9. Court Receiver’s Report is disposed of accordingly. (R. S. DALVI, J.)