1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.56 OF 2004 Madhukar Daji Parkar & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. Standy D'Souza & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. P.G. Karande, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. N. Dinkar Rao, Advocate for respondent No.1. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 25th November, 2008 P.C. 1. The applicants herein are the original plaintiffs and respondents no.1 and 2 to the appeal. Respondent No.1 to the Civil Application is original defendant No. 2 and the appellant. Respondent No.2 to the Civil Application is original defendant No.1 and respondent no. 3 to the appeal. 2. By the judgment and decree dated 14th October, 2003 impugned in the appeal, respondent No.1 has been directed to hand over possession of the suit premises together with the business being run therefrom. By the same order, right of respondent no.2 in the suit premises has been extinguished. Respondent no.1 has challenged the decree contending that he is the owner of 2 the business and rightful occupant of the suit premises. On 5th February,2004, respondent No.1 made a statement before the Court that he will not create any third party interest in the suit premises from that date. The appeal is since admitted. 3. By the present Civil Application, the applicants seek appointment of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as Receiver in respect of the suit premises with a direction that the Receiver shall appoint the applicants as his agents to occupy the suit premises. The applicants allege that despite the statement made by respondent No.1 before the Court, he has inducted third parties in the suit premises after removing all the furniture and fixtures of the hotel business that was being run from the suit premises. He had allowed one Sachin Jakatdar and one Sachin Godbole to use the suit premises for running their business of selling biscuits and bakery items. The photographs of the suit premises taken on 20th/22nd January,2004 produced by the applicants support the allegations. The photographs show name board `Sachin's' displayed on the suit premises and business of selling biscuits and bakery items being run therefrom. Apparently after the arrangement with two Sachins came to an end, respondent No.1 has allowed one Ravindra Nathuram More and Subhash Maruti Pawar to run a 3 Chinese restaurant from the suit premises. According to the applicants, these two persons, earlier used to conduct the business from the footpath in front of the suit premises. Once again the photographs of the suit premises taken in the first week of November,2007 support the allegations. 4. Respondent No.1 has filed a reply to the Civil Application baldly denying the allegations made by the applicants. Mr.Rao, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that there is no change either in the business carried on the suit premises or its occupation. This according to him, can be seen from the photographs produced by the applicants which show the name board of “Park Kulfy Corner” displayed on the suit premises. Merely because the board of Park Kulfy Corner is not removed from the suit premises, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 has not inducted any third party therein. He has not explained in the affidavit-in-reply either the business of selling biscuits and bakery items on the suit premises or the name board “Sachin's” or the business of Chinese hotel or the presence of strangers in the suit premises. In these circumstances, it will be just and convenient to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as Receiver of the suit premises. Hence, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of 4 prayer clause (a), except the portion bracketed in red. The Court Receiver shall appoint respondent No.1 as his Agent to carry on the business of Park Kulfy Corner from the suit premises, on such terms and conditions as he deems fit. The Officer of the Court Receiver shall visit the suit premises and make a report as regards the business being carried out in the suit premises. In the event, it is found that the business carried out therefrom is by a third person, the Court Receiver shall immediately take possession of the suit premises, after taking inventory of articles therein. In that event both the parties are at liberty to approach the Court for further directions to the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver to submit his report within a period of three weeks from today. 5. Court Receiver to act on the authenticated copy of this Order. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)