IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2689 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6742 OF 2003 Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan ...Applicant V/s. Parekh & Co. & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Vivek Kantawala i/b M/s.Vivek Kantawala & Co. for Applicant. None for Respondents. Mr.Zubin Kamdin with Mr.K.F.Tamboly for Intervenor. ...... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 27, 2009. 27, 2009. 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Applicant and Counsel for Intervenor-Mr.Ishwarsingh Chowhan. 2. Counsel for the Applicant is justified in pointing out that the said third party cannot be heard in the present proceedings as his application for intervention is already rejected on 11th September 2008. It is not necessary to burden this order with the said aspect. : 2 : 3. The limited question that needs to be considered is whether the Applicant is entitled for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him towards property taxes, repairs and ground rent for the previous year i.e. Rs.7,07,924/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-four) in aggregate. The claim of the Applicant that he has spent such amount is substantiated from the receipts produced by the Applicant. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the same. If it is so, the Applicant is entitled for being reimbursed for the entire amount of Rs.7,07,924/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-four) which has been paid by him towards property taxes, repairs, and ground rent for preserving the suit property. However, at the same time, it is noticed that Applicant has already collected rent from different tenants occupying the suit building to the extent of Rs.4,36,248/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty-six Thousand Two Hundred Forty-eight), which fact is stated on affidavit. In that sense, the Applicant is already reimbursed to that extent. The Applicant, therefore, will have to be reimbursed in the sum of Rs.2,71,676/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-one Thousand Six Hundred : 3 : Seventy-six) towards reimbursement of taxes and cess paid by him to the municipal authorities for the previous year. As it is indisputable that the Applicant has 6 ana share in the suit property, he will be entitled to withdraw further amount of Rs.1,24,062/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-four Thousand & Sixty-two) which is equivalent to 6 ana share in the remainder amount of Rs.3,30,834/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-four) out of the amount deposited in the lower Court after reimbursing the Applicant towards municipal taxes and rent in the sum of Rs.2,71,676/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-one Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-six). In other words, the Applicant is allowed to withdraw total sum of Rs.3,95,738/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety-five Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-eight) out of the amount deposited in the lower Court in the suit account, which withdrawal, however, will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 4. In the event, it is found that the Applicant has wrongly claimed any amount either towards municipal taxes, cess or ground rent, or his entitlement is held to be less than 6 anas, to : 4 : that extent, the Applicant will have to reimburse such amount along with interest as may be quantified by the Court at the appropriate time. 5. Counsel for the third party Mr.Ishwarsingh Chowhan submits that even his client has incurred similar expenses for preservation of the suit property. According to him, if the Applicant is permitted to withdraw the aforesaid amount, that would leave the balance amount which would be insufficient to cover the expenses incurred by the third party. 6. Needless to observe that the third party will have to first establish his claim that he has spent any amount towards preservation of the suit property which is legitimate expenditure. If he makes out that position, the Court may consider of directing the Applicant to bring back portion of the amount so as to reimburse the third party to the extent he is held to be entitled for such reimbursement. 7. The third party would be free to file proposed application before the lower Court where : 5 : the amount is deposited, who in turn, shall consider the claim of the third party in accordance with law keeping the above observations in mind. 8. Application disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.