1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2381 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1693 OF 2009 Sushila Shetty and Anr. .. Plaintiffs Versus Shailaja Purushottam Hegde and Anr. .. Defendants Mr.V.R.Shetty for plaintiffs Mr.Rakesh Kumar i/b. Vijendra S. Jabra for defendant Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th August 2009. P.C.: 1] Plaintiffs are mother and daughter. Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of one Raghu Shetty. Plaintiff No.2 is his daughter so also defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is the husband of defendant No.1 and the son in law of plaintiff No.1 and deceased Raghu Shetty. 2] The suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are jointly entitled to the estate of the deceased, including the tenancy rights in hotel business viz., Hotel Anugraha, which is situated at Dadar, Mumbai. 1 3] At the earlier stage, when this matter was placed before the Court on 15th April 2009, a statement was made by the defendants that they will not alienate or create third party interest in the business or the suit premises of hotel Anugraha. That statement is accepted and the matter is placed for hearing and final disposal. 4] On behalf of defendants it is contended that a suit has been filed being R.A.D. Suit No.161 of 2009 for a declaration that plaintiff therein and the defendants before this Court are the tenants of the premises where the Hotel business is being conducted. My attention is invited to an interim order in the suit filed in the Court of Small Causes under which there is restraint on present plaintiff from disturbing the possession of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the present suit except by due process of law. Mr.Shetty appearing for plaintiffs states that an appeal has been preferred against this order before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes, which will be shortly heard. 5] Mr.Shetty for plaintiff states that the plaintiffs have been wrongfully excluded from the estate and the business and considering the conduct of the son in law, this is a fit case where the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay shall be appointed as Receiver of the Hotel business and the premises. The Court Receiver can then invite bids from third parties and allow them to conduct the hotel business. On the other hand, the defendants would urge that the declaration as sought cannot be granted, in this Court’s limited jurisdiction and more particularly in the light of the 1 pendency of the declaratory suit. 6] After having perused the motion and affidavits in support and reply so also hearing the Counsel at some length, I indicated to the learned Advocate for defendants that considering that the plaintiff No.1 is mother of first defendant, she must be provided for her sustainance. After taking instructions from the defendant No.2 who is present in Court, learned Advocate states that the defendants would pay to the plaintiff No.1, mother a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. He submits that the defendants would have no objection to the interim order continuing till hearing and final disposal of the suit provided, of course, the same is continued without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the pending small causes court proceedings. 7] Accordingly, following order would sub-serve the ends of justice:- (a) Defendants to pay to the plaintiff No.1 a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 15th of each month. Payment shall be made from January 2009 and the arrears be paid by the defendants within a period of eight weeks from today. Similarly, every future payment shall be made on 15th of each month commencing from 15th September 2009. (b) In case of making payment of arrears as above or any two defaults in monthly instalments, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to apply for appointment of court receiver in respect of the suit 1 premises and such an application would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations in the present order. (c) Considering the nature of the dispute, hearing of the suit is expedited. List the suit for framing issues on 22nd September 2009. Mr.Shetty states that plaintiff No.1 has savings bank account in her name and she would inform the details thereof to defendants to enable them to deposit the monthly sum therein. (d) Notice of motion is made absolute in the above terrms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)