-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 897 OF 2006 APPEAL NO. 897 OF 2006 APPEAL NO. 897 OF 2006 IN IN IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2992 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2992 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2992 OF 2003 IN SUIT NO. 3181 OF 2003 SUIT NO. 3181 OF 2003 SUIT NO. 3181 OF 2003 Shantibhai J. Shah .. Appellant. V/s. 1.Kanchangauri Kiritkumar Vakharia and others. .. Respondents. --- Mr.A.K.Abhyankar with R.D.Suryavanshi for the Appellant. Mr.Sanjay Jain i/by Mr.Ramesh Jain for Respondent No.1. --- CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. DATED : 18th DECEMBER, 2006 DATED : 18th DECEMBER, 2006 DATED : 18th DECEMBER, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . We heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. We also considered the documents relevant for disposal of the Appeal. 2. We were shown the originals of the documents at pages 43 and 44 and also corresponding receipts of payment of fees made under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, by the Appellant. From the consideration of these documents, it appears to us that the Appellant had been in possession of the suit shop -: 2 :- since the year 1985. It is true that the Respondent No.1 has set up the case that the original documents (Xerox copies thereof are at pages 43 and 44) are the procured documents. It is very difficult to accept the case of the plaintiff in this regard at this stage, particularly, because these documents are the government documents. 3. Mr. A.K.Abhyankar, the counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has no objection if the Appellant is restrained from transferring, alienating or creating any third party rights or interest in the suit shop. As a matter of fact, he submitted that the Appellant gives an undertaking to that effect. 4. In our considered view, the order of injunction fully protects the interest of the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) and it would not be just and proper to appoint court receiver in respect of the suit premises. 5. Mr. Jain, the counsel for the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) submitted that the Appellant has not paid any compensation since the year 2000. The counsel for the Appellant did not dispute this fact and showed willingness of the Appellant in depositing/paying the -: 3 :- said amount to the Respondent No.1. 6. Since we have observed that the appointment of court receiver is not necessary, the compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- (Rupees Fifteen hundred) for the entire period, in our view, may not be adequate. 7. We, accordingly, dispose of the Appeal by the following order : ORDER ORDER ORDER i. The Appellant shall pay by the banker’s cheque to the Respondent No.1, the arrears of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees Fifteen hundred) per month upto the month of December, 2003. ii. The Appellant shall pay the arrears of compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred) per month from January, 2004 to December, 2006. The payment shall be made, as indicated above, through the banker’s cheque. iii. The entire arrears at the rate, -: 4 :- afore-mentioned, shall be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent No.1 on or before 31st January, 2007. iv. The Appellant shall continue to pay monthly compensation at the rate of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred) per month from the month of January, 2007 until further orders. v. The compensation for the month of January, 2007, at the aforesaid rate, shall be paid on or before 10th of February, 2007 and for the subsequent months, on or before 10th of each succeeding month. These payments shall also be made through banker’s cheque. vi. It is clarified that the payment by any other mode, shall not be treated as valid discharge. vii. The Appellant is restrained from transferring, alienating, disposing of or creating any third party right or interest in any manner whatsoever in the suit premises and shall maintain status-quo in all respect. -: 5 :- 8. In the light of the aforesaid directions, the impugned order, appointing the court receiver in respect of the suit premises, is quashed and set aside. 9. Needless to say that we have only set aside the clauses (i) and (ii) of the impugned order dated 22nd February, 2006 and the order against the Respondent No.2 continues as it is. (R.M.LODHA,J.) (S.A.BOBDE,J.) .....