* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.155 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 739 OF 1999 IN B.C.C.C.SUIT NO.4519 OF 1998 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2556 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 739 OF 1999 IN B.C.C.C.SUIT NO. 4519 OF 1998 Nandkishor Narayan Joshi & anr. ...Applicants/Appellants Orig.Defendants. V/S. Sujeet Narendra Sharma & anr. ....Respondents ---------- Mrs.Jyotsna V.Vyas,adv.for applicants. Mr.Y.R.Mishra, adv.for respondents. Mrs.Srivastav, Representative of Court Receiver present. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 17TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This is a common order on the report made by the Court Receiver and the Civil Application taken out by the applicant. Pursuant to the order dated 12th August, 1999 Court Receiver, * 2 * High Court, Bombay was appointed as Receiver of the suit premises being Shop No.II,at 20-M, Parekh Mansion, Hansraj Damodarwadi, Kennedy Bridge, J.S.S.Road, Bombay-400 004 with a direction to restore the possession of the applicant as his agent. The Court Receiver had fixed ad-hoc royalty for occupation of the premises by the applicant at Rs.10,000/- per month. On the application of the applicant, the same was modified to Rs.6,000/- per month. About nine years thereafter, i.e. on 17th March, 2009 the Court Receiver fixed the royalty amount at Rs.17,230/- per month and called upon the applicant to execute agency agreement accordingly. When the applicants failed to comply with the directions, the Court Receiver filed the report herein seeking directions from the court that the applicants be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.13,12,680/- towards the difference of royalty amount from 12th August, 1999 till March, 2009 including the amount of security of Rs.34,360/- and the consequential directions in the event of non-payment. Thereafter, the applicants took out the Civil Application for reduction in the amount of royalty. 2. The suit premises consist of a room admeasuring 9’6” x 16’-7” in the front being used for canteen-cum-restaurant and a room on the rear side admeasuring 9’6” x 9’-4” being used as Kitchenette. There is also an open nahani, storage facility to * 3 * the suit premises. The rear room also has mezzanine floor above 6’-3” of steel “T”s and tiles with bedding on top. The internal wall of the premises is 16” thick bric k masonry. The ceiling is of steel joists laid over with tiles, coba and finished with tiles. The front side is having rolling shutter while the rear side is having old paneled type door with two leaves shutters, opening into rear compound. The flooring is of polished tandore. Thus, the total carpet area of the shop is 246.14 sq.mtrs and that of mezzanine floor is 88.63 sq.ft. 3. The Court Receiver appointed valuer to value the suit premises and based on the report of the valuer has arrived at the monthly royalty payable by the applicants at to Rs.17,230/-. 4. Ms.Vyas, the learned counsel for the applicants submit that the compensation fixed by the Court Receiver is on the higher side considering the location of the premises and the business carried out by the applicants therein. According to the applicants, the shop premises are situated not on the main road but inside a lane. The applicants however do not specify the distance inside the lane and the distance from the main road. As per the report of the valuer, which is annexed to the Receiver’s report, the premises are easily accessible from Kennedy Bridge from the southern side of the bridge. Therefore, * 4 * it cannot be said that the premises are somewhere inside the bye-lanes, so as to reduce the compensation fixed. 5. Ms.Vyas further submits that the business carried out by the applicants from the suit premises is a small business of selling tea and snacks. The respondent to the Civil Application has raised serious disputes about this claim made by the applicants. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicants are running a hotel from the suit premises. In my opinion, the nature of business carried out by the applicants from the premises and the income generated therefrom is an irrelevant factor. Since, Receiver appointed is only in respect of the suit premises and not the suit business and consequently the royalty payable is only in respect of the premises. There is no need to dilate further on the submissions as regards the business carried out in the premises. 6. I have perused the report of the Receiver and Valuer. Considering the area of the premises and its location, and in my considered opinion, the royalty of Rs.15,000/- would be fair and reasonable for occupying the suit premises by the applicants as agent of the Receiver. The order of the Court Receiver fixing royalty is accordingly modified. With this order, the Civil Application stands disposed off and partly allowed. The applicants have been paying ad-hoc royalty fixed by the Receiver * 5 * of Rs.6,000/- since the month of August, 1999. The applicants are directed to deposit the difference of the royalty amount from 12th August, 1999 till March, 2009 at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand only) per month. The applicants shall also deposit the amount of security to be calculated on the basis of the royalty fixed. The amount of difference in the royalty and the security deposit to be paid within a period of 10 months from today. The applicants shall get credit for the amount deposited by them so far. In the event, the applicants fail to deposit the amount within the time stipulated, the Court Receiver shall take forcible possession of the suit premises from the applicants or whosoever is found to be in possession by breaking open the locks and, if necessary, with the help of the police. The applicants shall deposit future royalty amount at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month on/or before the tenth day of each succeeding month. With this, the Court Receiver’s Report stands disposed off. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 6 *