: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2732 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2732 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2732 OF 2009 Sayed Jaleel Mirale ... Petitioner V/s. Harakchand V. Shah & Ors. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.2733 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2733 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2733 OF 2009 Sayed Jaleel Mirale ... Petitioner V/s. Ketan Natwarlal Shah & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.P. Rege for the Petitioner. Mr.M. Nazmi i/b. S. Wassoodeo for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Both the Petitions are being heard together for admission as the facts involved are similar. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petitions challenging the order dated 6th October, 2006. By the impugned order, the first respondent has been put in possession of the suit premises by the City Civil Court. The City Civil Court on the basis of the material on record has prima facie noted that the first respondent had been put in possession : 2 : of the suit premises by one Abdul Majeed Kunji who was running the shop which the petitioner claims was tenanted by him. The petitioner contends that he was in physical possession of the premises being a tenant thereof and that the first respondent has unauthorizedly entered into the premises and is now continuing there in view of the order passed by the City Civil Court. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. On a perusal of the order of the City Civil Court I have found that there is no perversity in the order and that the finding of the Court is prima facie and based on the material available to the Court. The Court has concluded that the first respondent in both these Writ Petitions was put into possession of the premises on 6th March, 2006. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by order dated 10th July, 2007, the Court Receiver has been appointed in respect of the suit premises in Notice of Motion No.814 of 2006 in Suit No.2964 of 1994 and as a consequence respondent No.1 could not have been put in possession of the premises. This suit was filed by Siddiqua, who is : 3 : the sister of the petitioner, against her mother. By an order of 10th July, 2007, a learned Single Judge of this Court has appointed the Court Receiver to take possession of the suit premises. 5. However, this order has been challenged by the first respondent by preferring an LPA in view of the order passed by the City Civil Court on 6th October, 2006. In the LPA, the parties have been directed to maintain status-quo and the Receiver is not in possession of the suit premises today. In view thereof, the Petition is dismissed. .....