1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.523 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1777 OF 2004 Salma Asgarali Makati and others ..Plaintiffs. Vs. Shabbir Shaikh Shamsuddin Pachorawala and another ..Defendants. and M/s. Neelkamal Realtor Tower Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Rashid Khan with Ms. T. Zaidy i/b M/s. Zaidy & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Sanjay Jain i/b RMG Law Associates for Defendant No.1. Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar i/b Madhav Jamdar for the Applicant / Occupant. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate i/b M/s. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the Respondent. Mr. V.J. Rane, Representative of the Court Receiver present. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 13th February, 2008. P.C. : The suit is for the administration of the estate of the deceased Shaikh Shamsuddin Esufali Pachorawala. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are members of the family of the deceased. On a Motion for interim relief in the suit, the Court Receiver was appointed as Receiver of the immovable properties described in 2 Exhibit D to the Plaint save and except in respect of a dwelling house in Village Pachora. The order of the Learned Single Judge was modified to a certain extent on 15th December, 2005 by the Division Bench. Insofar as is material, the Division Bench clarified that the First Defendant shall continue to be an agent of the Receiver in respect of the immovable properties which are in his actual physical possession or which are lying vacant. The agency of the First Defendant was to be on usual terms and conditions but, without royalty and security. The present Notice of Motion has been taken out by the First Defendant for permitting him as agent of the Court Receiver to hand over the premises which are in his occupation at 58-B, Maulana Azad Road, Rangwala Compound, Mumbai admeasuring approximately 4,000 sq. ft. for the purpose of redevelopment. The Respondent to the Notice of Motion, M/s. Neelkamal Realtor Tower Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the immovable property known as Rangwala Compound, Cadastral Survey No.1906 at Maulana Azad Road, Jacob Circle, Mumbai. The Respondent is in the process of redeveloping the immovable property which also includes the tenanted premises situated therein. On 18th September, 2007 the Respondent had furnished an offer to the tenant and to the agent of the Receiver for the 3 purpose of redeveloping the property. At the present stage it would be necessary to note that there is no reason why a direction permitting the First Defendant as agent of the Receiver to handover the property for the purpose of redevelopment should not be issued. The premises in dispute are tenanted premises and as a result of the redevelopment, the Respondent as developer has agreed to furnish commercial premises of an equivalent area of 3,750 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the new construction that would be developed on the property on ownership basis, free of cost. At this stage, therefore, the First Defendant is permitted to hand over possession to the Respondent for the purposes of redevelopment. The Respondent has filed an affidavit dated 13th February, 2008 undertaking that upon the completion of the redevelopment, the Court Receiver will be put in possession of the developed premises on terms and conditions as set out in the letter of offer dated 18th September, 2007. The Respondent has also undertaken to execute an ownership document in favour of the Court Receiver or in favour of such party as may be directed by the Court. In the meantime, the Respondent has also agreed to handover temporary alternate accommodation. The First Defendant as the agent of the Receiver would be at liberty to occupy the alternate 4 accommodation to be provided by the Respondent. The undertakings furnished by the Respondent are accepted. After the work of redevelopment is completed, parties would be at liberty to apply for appropriate directions in regard to the execution of the requisite documents. The Receiver would also be at liberty to put up a report at the appropriate stage. The Respondent has undertaken through counsel that it would abide by such directions as may be issued by the Court and that no third party rights shall be created in respect of the premises which are agreed to be handed over in the redeveloped building, in lieu of the existing tenanted premises. The Motion is accordingly disposed of.