((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.298 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1086 OF 1996 Revachant H. Mehta Plaintiff versus Sham Babulal Borse and another Defendants Santosh Singh, advocate for plaintiff i/by Pillai & Co. Piyush Shah, advocate for occupants. D.V.Deokar, 1st Assistant to Court Receiver. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05th December 2008 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. I have heard Mr.Shah appearing for Sanjiv Bhailal Kanojia and Ravindra Shripad Kapadne. 2. By order dated 17th October 1997 passed in Notice of Motion No.547 of 1997 in Suit No.1986 of 1990 the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay was appointed as Receiver in respect of two shops on the ground floor and flat no.2 of the building ‘Shrijee Apartments’ at Block No.A/52, Tenement no.1042 bearing City Survey no.56, ((-2-)) Ulhasnagar, District Thane. The said order directed the Court Receiver to take formal possession of the of the flat and shops. This Court directed that if anybody was found occupying the shops or the flat, the occupant shall be appointed as agent of the Receiver on such terms as to royalty as the Court Receiver may deem it fit and proper. 3. It appears that the representative of the Court Receiver visited the property on 24th December 1997. The report records that when the representative of the Court Receiver visited the site it was found that one Mr.Surendra Ramdhiraj Singh was in occupation of shop no.2. He claimed that he had taken the said shop on rental basis from Nasir Khan from September 1997. The report records that the said Mr.S.R.Singh showed willingness to hand over the possession of the said shop and showed willingness to act as an agent of the Receiver. At that time Shop no.1 was found to be in possession of one Mr.Nizamuddin Shaikh who claimed to be the tenant of Mr.Nasir Khan. He also agreed to act as an agent of the Court Receiver. As far as flat no.2 is concerned, the representative of the Court Receiver found ((-3-)) that one Smt.Kamlabai Tulsidas Parmar was occupying the said flat. The said Kamlabai agreed to act as an agent of the Court Receiver. 4. It appears that subsequently none of the occupants came forward to execute the agency agreement and, therefore, even the royalty amount has not been paid. There is one more report dated 18th February 2008 on record. The said report records that on 16th February 2008 the representative of the Court Receiver visited the property and found that one Ravindra S. Kapadne was claiming to be in possession of the shop no.1 on the basis of the transaction entered into from one Parasram Gupta in the year 1991. At that time shop no.2 was found to be closed. Even flat no.2 was found to be closed. 5. There is a further report of inspection on record. The representative of the Court Receiver visited the property on 1st August 2008. In the report it is recorded that one Ravindra Kapadne was claiming to be in possession of shop no.1 on the basis of the transaction entered into with one Parasram Z. ((-4-)) Gupta. It was found that shop no.2 was in possession of one Sanjiv Kanojia. The flat no.2 was found to be occupied by Mr.Vijay Parmar. 6. Mr.Shah appearing for the said Sanjiv Kanojia and Ravindra Kapadne invited my attention to the affidavits filed on record. In paragraph no.2 of the affidavit of Mr.Sanjiv Kanojia it is stated that he is in possession of shop no.2 from June 2000. He has annexed a xerox copy of the agreement dated 17th June 1991 executed by M/s.Shreeji Builders and Developers in favour of said Parasram Gupta. He has, however, not produced any document to show that the said agreement was registered. He is relying upon agreement dated 14th December 2000 executed in his favour by Parasram Gupta. 7. The other person Ravindra Kapadne who claims to be in possession of shop no.1, is again claiming through Mr.Parasram Z. Gupta from 16th April 2000. 8. It must be noted here that when the Court Receiver visited the property on 24th December ((-5-)) 1997 both the aforesaid persons were not in possession and shops were in possession of Nizamuddin Shaikh and Mr.S.R.Singh. Thus, on their own showing the said two persons have entered in possession of the said shops in the year 2000 i.e. long after the Receiver had taken formal possession. Therefore, they have no right to continue in possession as their possession is illegal and unlawful. They will have to be evicted. 9. Insofar as flat no.2 is concerned, Mr.Vijay T. Parmar found in possession in the year 2008 was not occupying the flat in the year 1997. The person found in occupation on 24th December 1997 has not come forward to execute the agency agreement. Therefore, the person found in occupation of the said flat will have to be also evicted. 10. Hence, the report of the Court Receiver is disposed of by passing following order :- (a) The Court Receiver shall take forcible possession of the said shop nos.1 and 2 and flat no.2 described in the prayer clause (a) of the report. The Court Receiver will take ((-6-)) possession by dispossessing the persons found in possession of the said premises. The Inspector of Police of the concerned Police Station will render all possible help to the Court Receiver. If an application is made by the Court Receiver to concerned Police Officer along with authenticated copy of this order, requisite arrangement shall be made by the concerned Police Officer for granting protection for execution of the order passed by this Court; (b) Prayer clause (c) is granted; (c) This order shall be acted upon by the Court Receiver on expiry of period of three weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J.)