1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1031 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.758 OF 2007 ANIL MADANLAL KHANNA ..PLAINTIFF VS. SAROJ AMAR BHUTANI & ANR. ..DEFENDANTS Mr.P.M.Shah for Plaintiff None for Defendant CORAM: Smt. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 1 st April, 2009 P.C.: 1. This suit is filed u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Plaintiff claims to have been dispossessed. The Plaintiff has been licenced the suit premises which is an industrial gala on 01.06.1997. The licence was for 5 years. The Plaintiff continued in possession. The Plaintiff claims to have paid licence fees till December 2006. The Defendants have claimed that the Plaintiff has paid the licence fees till 2 October, 2006. 2. The Plaintiff was obstructed from entering upon the suit premises from the front gate. The Plaintiff sued the Defendants in the Bombay City Civil Court. An ad- interim order came to be passed on 01.01.2007 & 02.01.2007. Defendant No.2 in that suit, who is Defendant No.2 in this suit stated that the Plaintiff's goods were lying in the suit premises. He also stated that the Plaintiff has not vacated the entire premises and he was prepared to maintain status- quo till the reply is filed. The status- quo order was granted and continued thereafter. 3. The Court Commissioner came to be appointed in that suit. The Court Commissioner made a report on 02.01.2007. That report showed that Court Commissioner could not open the gate of the suit premises with the Plaintiff's key. The Plaintiff's claim to have been dispossessed accordingly. Hence the Plaintiff has filed this suit for restoration of possession. 4. The Plaintiff's Advocate states that order of status- quo has been continued in this suit under an ad- interim order. The Defendants have failed to appear. The Plaintiff has been directed to give notice of the hearing of this Notice of Motion 3 since January, 2009. 5. It is seen that the premises were licenced to the Plaintiff. The licence has expired by efflux of time. The Plaintiff had continued in possession. The Plaintiff's possession is required to be protected until the Defendants follow due legal process to recover possession in appropriate court. Until that is done the Defendant cannot lock up the Plaintiff's premises. It is also seen that the Defendants have admitted that the Plaintiff has not removed his goods. Hence the Plaintiff's possession in the suit premises even until January 2007 has been admitted. By that time the Plaintiff had already filed the suit in the Bombay City Civil Court and obtained the status- quo order. Affidavit in reply to the Notice of Motion filed by the Defendants also shows in paragraph 22(A) that remaining goods and articles of the Plaintiff's are lying in the suit premises. Hence the Plaintiff requires to restored the possession. 6. Court Receiver is appointed in respect of the suit premises. The Court Receiver shall break open the lock of the suit premises if it cannot be opened with the Plaintiff's key. The Court Receiver shall hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to be the agent of the Court Receiver upon payment of the licence 4 fee of Rs.8250 which the Plaintiff's Advocate states, was last licence fees payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. The Plaintiff shall continue in such possession until the Defendants follow due legal process for recovery of the suit premises in appropriate court and obtain further directions from that court. Copy of Plaintiff's Advocate giving notice to the Defendants Advocate dated 31.03.2009 is taken on record. Notice of Motion disposed of accordingly. (Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J)