: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 199 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.3590 OF 2006 Narendrakumar Sunderrao Hammand .. Plaintiff v/s. Pramod Shankar Hammand .. Defendants & Ors. ......... Mr. Rajesh G. Singh for the plaintiff Ms. Rajashree Malpote i/by R.D. Sawant for defendant no.2. None for the defendant nos.1 and 3. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 9th JUNE, 2010. P.C. : 1. The plaintiff claims to have rights in regard to the suit property and has therefore, instituted this suit for declaration that he has half share in the property described in prayer clause (a) of the plaint. He has sought partition of the said property. The present notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiff for three : 2 : reliefs. By prayer clause (a), the plaintiff wants an order of injunction restraining defendant no.3 from giving permanent accommodation to defendant no.2. By prayer clause (b), plaintiff wants that Gazette Notification dated 12th January 1989, Exhibit “D” to the plaint should be corrected. By prayer clause (c), the plaintiff wants appointment of the Court Receiver. By prayer clause (d), plaintiff wants that accounts as regards rent, be furnished by defendant no.1 and /or defendant no.2. 2. Learned advocate for the plaintiff in support of his contention states that that defendant no.3 is about to give permanent alternate accommodation to defendant no.2. He drew my attention to the Government Resolution dated 12th January, 1989 issued by Government of Maharashtra in their Housing and Special Assistance Department being G.R. No.ARS-1588/CR-684/D-II dated 28th November, 1988. 3. I have perused the said G.R. By the said G.R., the present : 3 : defendant no.2 is shown as the owner of building no.57 and by the said G.R., show-cause notice is issued and objections are sought as to why the said property should not be acquired. Perusal of this G.R. may at the most go to show that the property is likely to be acquired by the Government of Maharashtra / MHADA. This G.R. by itself does not indicate that defendant no.2 will be allotted a permanent alternate accommodation. Learned advocate for the plaintiff could not point out any other material on the basis of which it can be said that defendant no.2 is likely to be allotted a permanent alternate accommodation by Government of Maharashtra or defendant no.3. If this be so, the relief sought by the plaintiff so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned is premature and cannot be granted as of today. 4. So far as prayer clause (b) by which plaintiff wants correction of the G.R. with reference to the name of the plaintiff / defendant no.2 is concerned. Such a relief cannot be granted in the notice of motion. Plaintiff may have to take out : 4 : appropriate proceedings for that. 5. So far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, no case is made out for appointment of Court Receiver. The said prayer cannot be granted. 6. So far as prayer clause (d) is concerned, there is no question of this Court directing defendant no.1 to furnish accounts as regards rent received from defendant no.2. In my view, such a relief cannot be granted at this stage as it has been the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 had illegally let out the premises to defendant no.2. It may be open for the plaintiff to adopt appropriate remedy so as to get the relief in terms of prayer clause (d). In view of the aforesaid discussion, this notice of motion cannot be granted and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)