1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 428 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 551 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2429 OF 1997 Lakhan Channa Kanojia ).......Appellant versus Naina Deepak Kamani & ors )........ Respondant. Mr. D.S. Chandanani i/b M/s. Laxim Associates for the Appellant. Ms. Seetal kumar i/b M/s. M.M. Patel & Co. for the respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 12TH AUGUST 2008. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 29TH AUGUST 2008. JUDGMENT: (Per A.P. DESHPANDE, J.): 1. This Appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23rd July 2008 dismissing the Notice of Motion and thereby confirming an order passed by the Court Receiver fixing the royalty at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per month. The subject matter of this Appeal is a flat 2 no. 31 situated on the ground floor of Ram Niwas building, Worli. The present appellant is Defendant no.7 in the suit. The flat in question is admeasuring 3000 sq. fts. Situated at Worli. 2. By an order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court had appointed the Court Receiver allowing the Notice of Motion moved by the Plaintiff. It was directed that the Appellant/Defendant no.7 should pay royalty as fixed by the Court Receiver. The said order was challenged by Defendant no.7 by filing an appeal and the Appellate Court having dismissed the appeal, the present appellant carried the matter to the Apex Court by filing the S.L.P. The Supreme Court while disposing the SLP, granted liberty to the Appellant/Defendant no.7 to file a review petition before the Division Bench. The Division Bench after hearing the parties confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge vide its judgment and order dated 20-1-2005. The said order has assumed finality. In the said order the Division Bench has specifically observed, as noted by the learned Single Judge, that the Defendant no.7 (appellant) is permitted to occupy the said premises on the condition that he should pay the royalty as fixed by the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver had appointed a valuer and the valuation report came to be submitted by M/s. Nadkarni and Company. As the flat is situated in the heart of the city of Bombay i.e. at Worli, the valuer fixed the 3 compensation to be charged for the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 1, 25,000/- per month. The Court Receiver, however, in his report has reduced the said amount and fixed the royalty/compensation in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- per month. As stated hereinabove, the order appointing Receiver and permitting the appellant to occupy the same on payment of compensation/royalty has assumed finality. Thus the only question that can be gone into in this appeal is the correctness of fixation of the amount of royalty/compensation in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that the very appointment of Receiver was obtained by practicing fraud. The said plea was neither raised nor dealt with by the learned Single Judge. The plea of fraud need to be raised in substantive proceeding and not in the collateral proceeding such as the present appeal, which arises on fixation of the royalty/compensation by the Court Receiver. In this view of the matter, we decline to consider the said plea in the present appeal. 3. Perusal of the order passed by the Court Receiver, so also the learned Single Judge makes it clear that having regard to the prevailing rent in the locality of Worli, Rs. 60,000/- per month for a premises of 3000 sq. fts. cannot be said to be exorbitant, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The order passed by the Court Receiver so also the learned Single Judge is 4 based on material on record such as valuation report filed by M/s. Nadkarni & Company. 4. Perused the impugned order. We do not see any reason to interfere with the same, as the impugned orders goes to take a possible view of the matter. In the result, the appeal so also the Notice of Motion stands summarily dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.