ndm 1 wpl.2482.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2482 OF 2009 Bharati Dhanesh Goragandhi. ... PETITIONER Vs. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai and seven ors. ... RESPONDENTS -------------- Ms. Varsha Palav, Advocate for Petitioners. Ms. S.M. Modale, Advocate for BMC. Mr. Anand Grover, Advocate for the Respondent No.7. Mr. G.G. Ketkar, first assistant to Court Receiver, present. -------------- CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI, & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 17 th December, 2009. P.C. 1 The petitioner is the mother of the 7 th respondent. There is a long pending dispute between the petitioner and the 7 th respondent about the properties left behind by the petitioner’s deceased husband. A suit being Suit No. 1227 of 1997 is pending on the Original Side of this Court in respect of the said properties (suit premises). On 20 th November, 1998, learned Single Judge of this Court appointed Receiver in respect of ndm 2 wpl.2482.09.sxw the suit properties. Learned Single Judge directed the Court Receiver not to disposses any party, if it is in possession. The parties were directed to approach the Court for appropriate direction in relation to the custody and management of the suit properties. It appears to us that none of the parties have approached the Court for any direction as regards custody and management of the suit properties. 2 The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the 7 th respondent has carried out illegal and unauthorized construction in the premises which are the subject matter of this petition and which forms part of the suit properties without requisite permission. It is also her case that the 7 th respondent has amalgamated the shops and the office without permission from this court. According to the petitioner, permission of this court was necessary because the property is custodia legis. Certain photographs are shown to us in support of this submission. The petitioner has in the circumstances inter alia sought an order restraining the 7 th respondent from carrying out any unauthorized construction. The Receiver has submitted his report dated 7/12/09 in this court. Admittedly the Receiver has also not approached the court for appropriate orders. 3 This petition involves extremely disputed questions of facts which cannot be dealt with by us in our writ jurisdiction. The parties may, ndm 3 wpl.2482.09.sxw however, if they so desire, approach, the court which is seized of the pending suit and obtain necessary orders. The Receiver must also submit a detailed report before that court. It is not disputed that the 7 th respondent was carrying out the business of Eating House and Juice Centre in the premises which are the subject matter of this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the permission / licence granted by the Municipal Corporation to the 7 th respondent has lapsed and hence the petitioner can no longer carry out the said business. Mr. Grover, learned counsel for the 7 th respondent states that the 7 th respondent shall not carry out the said business till such time as he gets his licence renewed from the Municipal Corporation. 4 In the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the petition can be disposed of by passing following order: a) The 1 st Assistant to the Court Receiver, who is present in the court states that the Court Receiver will submit a detailed report to the court which is seized of the pending suit in respect of the suit properties and obtain necessary orders. He states that, that would obviously include the premises which are the subject matter of the present petition. b) Learned counsel for the parties state that they will adopt ndm 4 wpl.2482.09.sxw appropriate proceedings within four weeks from today before the court which is seized of the pending suit for appropriate orders. c) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner wants to add Mumbai Municipal Corporation as party defendant to the pending suit and the petitioner shall take steps in that behalf within four weeks from today. d) We record the statement made by Mr. Grover, learned counsel for the 7 th respondent that renovation of the premises which are the subject matter of this petition is complete. We do not express any opinion on this aspect. e) We record the statement made by Mr. Grover, learned counsel for the 7 th respondent that till his licence is renewed by the Municipal Corporation, the 7 th respondent will not carry out any business in the suit properties. We accept the said statement. We, however, make it clear that, we have merely recorded the statement of Mr. Grover. This should not be construed to mean that we have directed the Corporation to renew the licence of the 7 th respondent. Whether to renew the licence of the 7 th respondent or not may be considered by the Corporation independently and in accordance with law. ndm 5 wpl.2482.09.sxw f) Till such time as appropriate order is passed by the court seized of the suit, no further construction activity will be carried out by the 7 th respondent in the suit properties. g) All contentions raised by both sides are kept open. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The earlier order stands modified to the above extent. h) The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [ SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J ] [ SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ]