-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 30 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 66 OF 2004. Samarthmal H. Mehta. ..Plaintiff. Versus Peerchand M. Bhansali. ..Defendant. Ms. Usha Purohit for the plaintiff. Mr. Bharat Vaishnawa i/b M/s. B. Vaishnawa & Co. for the defendant. Mr. David, Representative of the Court Receiver. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : January 21, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. This Notice of motion is taken out by the defendant for direction to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to appoint valuer from the panel of Office of the Court Receiver, to visit the suit room and to assess the suit premises and give a report thereof, and after the receipt of such report, the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay be further directed to fix the royalty of the suit room as per the said report. 2. The above suit is filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. By the order dated 13th December 2004 passed in Notice of Motion No. 157 of 2004, this Court at the instance of the plaintiff appointed the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay as the Receiver of the suit premises and -: 2 :- further directed the Court Receiver to appoint the plaintiff as an agent of the Court Receiver without security and royalty. The matter was taken to the Apex Court, however, this order appointing the Court Receiver was confirmed by the Apex Court. The Apex Court granted liberty to the defendants to approach the High Court for the purpose of seeking a direction to the Receiver with regard to payment of royalty. By the order dated 5th March 2007 passed in Chamber Summons No. 169 of 2007 this Court fixed the ad-hoc royalty of Rs.9,000/- in respect of the suit room. Subsequently by order dated 8th June 2007 passed in the Chamber Summons No. 159 of 2007, matter was relegated before the Court Receiver for further determination of the royalty. Court Receiver thereafter by an order dated 21st March 2009 fixed the royalty at Rs.5,000/-. 3. The contention of the defendant is that the suit room admeasures about 425 sq. ft. and is situated at C.P. Tank and taking into consideration the area, location and value of the suit room the royalty ought to have been at higher value than what is fixed by the Court Receiver. 4. The order dated 21st March 2009 is passed by the Court Receiver after hearing the plaintiff and the defendant. The specific finding is recorded by the Court Receiver that the suit room is not in habitable condition and essential amenities such as water, electricity and ventilation are not available to the suit room. Upon consideration of these facts, the Court Receiver fixed the royalty at Rs.5,000/-. Prior to the passing of this order, the Commissioner was appointed by an order dated 10th September -: 3 :- 2004. The Report of the Commissioner also corroborates the actual position of the suit room. The defendant has not challenged or objected the Court Commissioner’s report. Under these circumstances, the Court is not expected to needlessly interfere with the value fixed by the Court Receiver especially in the absence of prejudice to the defendants. I find that the notice of motion is devoid of merits. Hence, the same is accordingly dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)