1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2009 COURT RECEIVER S REPORT ’ NO. 52 OF 2008 IN SUIT. NO. 3181 OF 1996 Pushpaben Furia .. Appellant. Vs. Premji Nanji Dudha alias Gohil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Lalit Chheda i/by Rekha Mehta for the Appellant. Mr. Sanjay Zain with Ms. Yogini Gada i/by Harakchand & Co. for respondent. Mr. K.L. Vyas, Court Receiver present. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 27TH JULY, 2009 P.C. : This appeal is preferred by Pushpaben Furia who was 2 found to be occupant of one of the rooms in the property which is in possession of the Court Receiver along with her mother Maniben Furia @ Shah who is in occupation of another room. When the Court Receiver visited the premises he found that presently in the room occupied by Pushpaben Furia, Praful Nissar is residing. The said Prafulla Nissar claims that he is the cousin of Pushpaben Furia and is occupying the premises as care taker of the said tenanted premises. This is evident from the affidavit filed by mother of Pushpaben Furia i.e. Smt. Maniben Furia @ Shah who is reported to have died. 2. On query from this Court we have been informed that Pushpaben Furia had gone to visit one of her married sisters when the Court Receiver went to inspect the premises. But, today she is residing in the tenanted premises along with the care taker. 3. In view of this development i.e., her natural guardian Maniben mother having expired, it will be proper that the plaintiff – in the original suit i.e., the respondent to take appropriate steps as this has been revealed for the first time in this Court today and seek appointment of guardian of Pushpaben Furia who is reported to be incapable of taking care of herself. 3 4. So far as the appeal filed by Pushpaben Furia is concerned, it is not maintainable on two counts. Firstly that she is not represented by a guardian appointed by the Court and the so-called care taker was never appointed as guardian of Pushpaben Furia by her mother Maniben Furia @ Shah but care taker of the tenanted premises. In our view, the care taker of the tenanted premises cannot be permitted to occupy the premises as its possesson was already taken over by the Court Receiver and if at all Praful Nissar claims any right either by way of a care taker or so, he ought to have taken permission of the Court through the Court Receiver to occupy the premises in his capacity as the so-called care taker. Therefore, we do not find that the sid Pushpaben Furia is entitled to maintain this appeal which is being prosecuted by the said care taker Praful Nissar. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. The Court Receiver is directed to take over possession of the tenanted premises in which Pushpaben Furia was found to be one of the occupants and make inventory as to who is in possession of the premises which were in occupation of Maniben Furia @ Shah. 5. The Court Receiver will requisition police help from the local police station and on the Court Receiver writing a letter of request, the Senior P.I. of the local police station would make available 4 sufficient police force to the Court Receiver to execute the impugned order under appeal for taking possesion of these tenements from any persons whomsoever is found in occupation / possession. In case the premises are found to be under lock and key, the Court Receiver will break open the lock and prepare an inventory of the same and seal the premises and report compliance to the concerned Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks to enable him to take instructions from the appellant as to whether the appellant proposes to challenge the order before the Supreme Court. The Court Receiver to act and execute our order after two weeks from today. ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)