:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY TESTAMENTARY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE CIVIL JURISDICTION & INTESTATE CIVIL JURISDICTION & INTESTATE CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 9 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 9 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 9 OF 2009 IN IN IN PETITION PETITION PETITION NO. 1021 OF NO. 1021 OF NO. 1021 OF 2008 2008 2008 AND AND AND NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 10 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 10 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 10 OF 2009 IN IN IN PETITION PETITION PETITION NO. 1022 OF 2008 NO. 1022 OF 2008 NO. 1022 OF 2008 Smt. Ushadevi Umanath Kamath & Anr. ... Petitioners. V/s. Smt. Vidhya Dayanand Pai & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. D.D. Belosay for the Petitioners. Mr. Venkateshan for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.C. Murlidharan for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 20TH 20TH 20TH MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard Mr. Belosay, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Venkateshan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Murlidharan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. The Petitioner states that the Petition is filed by them as Executors and Beneficiaries for Probate of the Will of the deceased Mizar A. Shenoy. 3. My attention is invited to the immovable properties namely an office premises which is situated at Colaba and a piece of land alongwith structure standing thereon, :2: known as ‘Pathan Chawl’. 4. Both properties are more particularly described in prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Petition. 5. It is urged by Mr. Belosay that the First Respondent claims to be in possession of the property at Colaba, whereas the property at Dadar has structures which have been let out to about 40 tenants. It is stated that there is a dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No.1, who has also filed a Petition for Probate of a Will allegedly made by the deceased after the Will relied upon by the Petitioners. For all these reasons and when subject matter of the litigation has to be preserved, this Court must pass appropriate orders. 6. The First Respondent’s Advocate does not dispute that the First Respondent is in possession of the property at Colaba. He makes a statement that an order of status-quo has already been passed with regard thereto. He makes a further statement that until further orders of this Court, the First Respondent will not alienate, encumber, part with possession or create third party rights in respect of the premises at Colaba, more particularly described in prayer clauses (a) and (b) of this Notice of Motion. However, he states that the First Respondent will pay the necessary charges/taxes with regard to the Colaba property. :3: 7. All statements of the First Respondents are accepted as an undertaking to this Court. In the light of the same, it is not necessary to pass any interim orders with regard to Colaba property. 8. As far as Dadar property is concerned, it is stated by both sides that there are Suits filed against the tenants and they are pending in the Small Causes Court. Both, the Petitioners and the First Respondent want to proceed with these Suits. Today, there is a dispute as to who shall collect the rent and pay the taxes. In such circumstances, both sides agree that Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay shall be appointed Receiver for the purpose of collecting rent and paying taxes in respect of the Dadar property, which is more particularly described in prayer clauses (a) and (b). This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioners and the First Respondent in this Petition, so also in the pending Suits in the Court of Small Causes. Both sides to co-operate with the Court Receiver by handing over to the Court Receiver details of the tenants and the rent that are being paid so also the demands towards taxes and other statutory charges. Needless to state that if the parties do not co-operate with the Court Receiver, it would be open for the Court Receiver to seek appropriate directions from the Court. However, both Petitioners and Respondent No.1 shall not effect any Transfer of Tenancies or accept :4: surrender thereof, without leave of the Court. 9. Presently, there is no necessity of passing further orders and more particularly, when the Second Respondent is claiming to be the owner of the Colaba property. All such aspects will be gone into as and when the main Petition is placed before the Court. 10. With the above directions, this Notice of Motion is disposed off. Needless to state that the Court Receiver can collect/withdraw the sums deposited in the Small Causes Court by the tenants, after bringing to the Small Causes Court’s notice the order passed in this Notice of Motion. The Court Receiver to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)