1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2559 of 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 811 of 2006 Satish Bhatnagar & ors. .. Applicants versus Vinod Rajkumar Bhatnagar & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Divya Shah Associates for the applicants. Mr.E.A. Sagi for respondent nos.12 and 13. Mr.V.P. Tripathi for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 23rd July 2008 P.C.: 1. In this application, it is prayed that the court receiver be ordered to take back possession of the tenanted premises from respondent no.1/plaintiff and for further relief that the applicant be put in 2 possession of the suit premises as agent of the court receiver. In so far as the first part of the relief is concerned, the same is worked out having regard to the fact that the court receiver has already taken possession of the tenanted premises from respondent no.1/plantiff in terms of order dated 28th March 2008. In that sense, no further directions are required in that regard. 2. In so far as second part of the relief is concerned, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order of this court passed in Notice of Motion no.2175 of 1998 dated 17th July 1998 and 5th May 1999 to contend that in terms of the said orders it is the applicant who will have to be appointed as agent of the court receiver and put in possession of the tenanted premises. Prima facie, the said orders merely record that if the respondent no.1 herein/plaintiff were to commit any default, the court receiver would take over possession of the tenanted premises and induct the "applicant" or "any third party" therein on such terms and conditions as may be warranted. It is not an order giving no option to the court receiver to nominate appropriate and eligible person as his agent and put him in possession of suit premises on such terms and conditions as he may think it appropriate. If it is 3 so, in my opinion, the proper course is to leave the question of appointing agent of the court receiver to be considered by the Court Receiver in the first instance, who in turn shall examine the claim of the applicant or any other person including the respondent no.12 who claims to have interest in the suit premises and pass appropriate order as may be advised. 3. In so far as the applicant is concerned, in the cognate application being Civil Application no.26 of 2007 has clearly asserted that the proper and fair price for the suit premises ought to be not less than Rs.35,000/- p.m. On the other hand, Sarla Bhatnagar in Civil Application no.1303 of 2006 asserts that the fair compensatory royalty amount for the suit premises ought to be Rs.50,000/- p.m. The court receiver shall keep that aspect in mind while appointing the competent person as agent of the court receiver. The claim of the applicant that the tenanted premises should be given to the agent for consideration not less than Rs.35,000/- is founded on the report submitted by the valuer which is part of record which also will have to be considered by the court receiver. 4. In the circumstances, this application is 4 disposed of by leaving the question of appointing appropriate person as agent of the court receiver to be decided by the court receiver after considering the claims of all the concerned parties who are interested in being appointed as agent of the court receiver. All questions in that behalf are left open. The Court Receiver to decide the said issue expeditiously and not later than two months from now. 5. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)