pvr 1 apl215-216-11 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODG)NO.215 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.973 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.891 OF 2010 AND APPEAL (LODG)NO.216 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1594 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.891 OF 2010 Mustafa s/o. Haji Abubakar Haji Eisa. ...Appellant vs. 1.Zuleikha William Hutchinson & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.P.K.Samdhani, Sr.Advocate with C.D.Patel & Lalan Gupta i/b. M/s.Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Appellant. Mr.Gaurav Joshi with Ms.Snehal Phene & Ms.Rajani Divkar i/b. M/s.Little & Co., for Respondent no. 1. Mr.V.R.Tripathi, for Respondent no.2. Respondent no.3 in person present. --- pvr 2 apl215-216-11 CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED: 11th April,2011 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. There is no dispute that the property is belonged to the deceased. The case of the present appellant was that he is tenant of that property. Though this position was disputed by the plaintiff, the learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding on this issue. However, for protecting the interest of everybody involved, the learned Single Judge appointed Receiver and the Receiver is directed not to disturb the possession of the appellant, but the appellant is required to pay only rent to the Receiver. When the learned Single Judge observed in his judgment in paragraph 15 that the Receiver should permit the present appellant who was first defendant in the suit, to continue in occupation of the property, what the learned Single Judge pvr 3 apl215-216-11 means is that the Receiver should not disturb his possession. We do not find any substance in the appeals. They are dismissed. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.)