skt/- 1 4.chs 1979.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1979 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1777 OF 2004 Salma Asgarali Makati & Ors. ... Plaintiffs Vs. Shabbir Shaikh Shamsuddin G Pachorawala & Ors. ... Defendants ..... Ms. Mridula Bhatia with Ms.Tasneem Zaidy i/by Zaidy & Co. for Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4. Mr.Y.R.Chaudhari for Plaintiff No.5. Mr.Sunil Gangan with Mr. Jayesh Mistry i/by RMG Law Ass. for Defendant No.1. Mr.Madhav Jamdar for Defendant No.3. .... CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 27th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1 The Court Receiver has been appointed in the suit and directed to take inspection of the suit property and the tenants/occupants are directed to pay the rent/occupation charges to the Court Receiver under the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15th December 2005. 2 That order is sought to be enforced with regard to premises admeasuring 3750 sq.ft. in possession of one Ahmed Khan, Proprietor of Noor Fitting House and Sara Exports carrying on business of skt/- 2 4.chs 1979.09.sxw manufacturing and selling leather bags and of exporting leather bags at Gala No.4, House No.58, Rangwala Compound, Maulana Azad Road, Mumbai – 400 008. The said Ahmed Khan, Proprietor of Sara Exports has been joined as respondent no.1 and his employee one Zainal Taiyab Moghal, has joined as respondent no.2 to this Chamber Summons. 3 The copy of this Chamber Summons has been served upon respondent no.1 through courier on 30-12-2009. Respondent no.2 is stated to be the Manager of defendant no.3, by the counsel for defendant no.3. 4 The Court Receiver took inspection of the aforesaid premises as directed. He has made his report dated 19-11-2009. As alleged by the plaintiffs, he found the said Ahmed Khan, Respondent No.1 herein, carrying on a business of manufacturing and selling of leather bags in the name of Sara Exporters. When the Court Receiver asked him to show documents to the effect that he was carrying on business in the aforesaid name, none were shown to the Receiver. The Receiver’s report shows a number of bags lying in the suit premises and suit premises having one mezzanine floor having 8 sewing machines. The Receiver has taken photographs of the premises from inside as well as outside, which show a skt/- 3 4.chs 1979.09.sxw manufacturing business. The Receiver has submitted his report along with the photographs of the premises. 5 The Receiver’s report also shows that the Production Manager of the business had come at the sight of the inspection and introduced himself. He has stated that he was working for defendant no.1, who was carrying on business of manufacturing and storing bags in the name of defendant no.3. Upon being called to show the relevant documents, he showed none to the Court Receiver. It is contended on behalf of defendant no.1 that this premises was initially vacant and hence he is entitled to continue the business as per the aforesaid Division Bench order. He says that he took over the premises and is doing job work of manufacturing the bags. 6 The purpose of appointment of the Court Receiver is precisely to see that the suit property yields income for the benefit of all the parties who claim a share in the estate of their deceased father and subject to the claim of defendant nos.1 to 3, that these are separate partnership properties belonging to respondent nos.1 and 3. This fact can be seen only at the time of trial. skt/- 4 4.chs 1979.09.sxw 7 The total lack of documents shows that what has been stated to the Receiver cannot be accepted. 8 For the property which is tenanted or otherwise in occupation of a third party, he must pay the rent and monthly occupation charges to the Receiver directly, as per the aforesaid Division Bench order. If defendant no.1 or 3 contend that it is their partnership property or used for their partnership business, they must substantiate that fact by documentary evidence. Even in the Court, defendant nos. 1 to 3, who are separately represented by counsel, have been called upon to show any documents relating to the business of manufacturing bags by them. No documents are produced. Even the income tax returns for business of manufacturing bags, is not shown. Hence, their statement cannot be accepted. 9 The plaintiffs contend that Rs.30,000/- or the charges at market rate determined by the Receiver be received as occupation charges. Hence order : O R D E R 1. The Court Receiver shall fix the market price of the aforesaid suit premises. skt/- 5 4.chs 1979.09.sxw 2. Defendant Nos. 1 & 3 shall pay the rent/occupancy charges at market rate as fixed by the Court Receiver. 3. If Defendant Nos. 1 & 3 fail to pay the amount as determined by the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall take possession of the aforesaid suit premises and thereafter handover the premises to the aforesaid Ahmed Khan or any third party who offers to pay such market rate. 4. The said amount shall be received by the Court Receiver directly as per the aforesaid Division Bench order. 10 The Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.ROSHAN.S. DALVI, J.]