:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.392 OF 2005 NO.392 OF 2005 NO.392 OF 2005 IN IN IN COURT COURT COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT DATED 21ST MARCH 2005 RECEIVER’S REPORT DATED 21ST MARCH 2005 RECEIVER’S REPORT DATED 21ST MARCH 2005 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.603 OF 1981 NO.603 OF 1981 NO.603 OF 1981 Bai Khatija Yusuf Bastawala & Anr ..Appellants V/s Mrs. Fatimabai Abedali Dahodwala & Ors ..Respondents Shri Chandurwala i/b M/s Desai and Diwanji for the Appellants Shri A.N. Maniyar for the Respondents CORAM ; S.A.BOBDE AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 603 of 1981 dated 22-03-2005 which reads as under:- "Heard advocates for the parties and the Receiver. Learned advocate for plaintiffs has not been able to show any order empowering the Court Receiver to take possession from M/s Mama Traders in respect of which they claim to be in possession. In view thereof no directions are called for.C.R. report disposed of." 2. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants M/s Mama Traders is in joint possession with the Court Receiver of a portion on the ground floor premises which has been declared to be the :2: property of late Kurbanhussain Tayaballi . According to the learned counsel for the appellants hereto the M/s Mama Traders was claiming to be the licensee of the suit premises and had filed a suit in order to protect his possession. However, admittedly that suit having been dismissed in default, M/s Mama Traders has lost the right to possession and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the Court Receiver to take possession of the premises from M/s Mama Traders. Not having done so, the learned Counsel submits that the order is illegal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and we find that the property has been declared the property of the estate of Late Kurbanhusain Tyaballi in suit for administration filed by his daughter Bai Khatija Yusuf Bastiwal and others. It also appears that M/s Mama Traders was in joint possession of the property with the Court receiver. Shri Maniyar, learned Counsel for the respondent fairly admits that suit filed by M/s Mama Traders has been dismissed in default. He however submits that the M/s Mama Traders is in possession of the premises not by virtue of the Court Receiver but by virtue of the fact that they claim to be licensees :3: in respect of the premises. Having heard the matter it is not possible to accept the submissions on behalf of the appellants that because the suit filed by M/s Mama Traders for protection of its possession has been dismissed in default, they can be evicted forthwith through the Court Receiver. The property appears to have been declared to be belonging to the estate of Late Kurbanhussain Tayaballi. In these circumstances, those who have right to possession of the property would be entitled to take possession in accordance with the procedure established by law. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge who has observed that the appellants have not been able to show any order empowering the Court Receiver to take possession from the M/s Mama Traders. In view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal. 2. Appeal dismissed. (S.A.BOBDE, (S.A.BOBDE, (S.A.BOBDE, J.) J.) J.) (A.A. (A.A. (A.A. SAYED, J.) SAYED, J.) SAYED, J.)