:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3405 OF PETITION NO. 3405 OF PETITION NO. 3405 OF 2009 2009 2009 Smt. Raziya d/o. Late Shri Gulsher Khan & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay. ... Respondent. Mr. Niranjan Pandit i/b. Uraizee & Law Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. J.M. Panchal, Clerk of the Office of the Court Receiver present in Court. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 24TH 24TH 24TH APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The Court Receiver is duly served with the memo of the Writ Petition and the Annexures. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Pandit, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is genuine and has substance. 2. The Lower Appellate Court ought to have accepted the genuine request of the Petitioners and should have clarified the earlier order. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Lower Appellate Court has, in its Judgment and Order delivered in the Appeal being Rent Act Appeal No.281 of 2002 has held that the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession of the Suit premises and his Suit in that regard is liable to be dismissed. The Court Receiver, who has proceeded to prosecute this Suit accepts that this is the finding of the Lower Appellate Court. Mr. Pandit does not dispute that the standard rent of the :2: premises is enhanced and the rent at the enhanced rate will have to be paid by the Respondent. The Petitioner before me is the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court. However, there is an obvious error inasmuch as the Original Plaintiff is entitled to recover Mesne profit but the Lower Appellate Court’s directions in the operative part "till the possession of the Suit premises is handed over by the Defendant/Tenant to the Court Receiver" is obviously erroneous and inconsistent so also contradictory with the Judgment and Decree rendered by it. If the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession, then, there is no question of the Court Receiver being permitted to take possession of the Suit premises nor the Petitioner - Original Defendant will be obliged to hand over the same to him. This error should have been corrected by clearing the Ambiguity. Further, Rs.19.70 is the enhanced standard rate and will have to be paid per month. There is no question of any Mesne profit being directed to be paid nor there can be any Enquiry into the same. The order under challenge refusing to make this correction and clarification is set aside to this extent alone. The Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Needless to state that the decree of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court stands modified in these terms. However, this does not preclude the Plaintiff or the Court Receiver from challenging it in accordance with law. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)