1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No.298 of 2009 IN Suit No.543 of 2000 Smt.Prafullata R. Varhadi .. .. Plaintiff v/s. Pushpalata C. Chury & ors. .. .. Defendants A n d Dilip R. Ghag .. .. Applicant Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Plaintiff. Mr.R.V. Govilkar for Applicant. Mr.P.G. Lad, AGP for MHADA. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 23rd June, 2010 P.C. : 1.The Applicant has applied for a declaration that the consent decree dated 18.12.2008 passed in Appeal (Lodging) No.738 of 2008 in terms of the consent terms signed by the parties in the suit is not executable against the Applicant and the Court Receiver, who sealed his premises being Room No.105 of chawl No.5 of the suit chawl being Anaji Master chawl, be removed and the possession of the suit chawl be restored to the 2 Applicant. 2.The Applicant claims to have been in possession of the suit premises in the suit building being room No.105 in the suit chawl since about 1971. The Court Receiver has been appointed on 22.2.2000. The Applicant claims that under the aforesaid consent decree, which has been collusively obtained, the parties seek to recover possession from several of the tenants without following due legal process for recovery of possession and hence the Applicant has applied for a stay of the consent decree. The Applicant would be entitled to have a stay of the consent decree and of the Court Receiver acting thereupon only qua the Applicant s own premises. 3.It is argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that the stay application is premature and that only after the Court Receiver takes possession, can the Applicant take recourse to law and that the application is in the nature of obstruction proceedings which the Applicant cannot take. It is seen that the Court Receiver has already taken possession from two occupants of the suit chawl under the aforesaid decree dated 18.12.2008. The Applicant, therefore, apprehends that possession of her chawl also would be taken from him. 4.The Applicant has produced the tenancy Agreement dated 3 25.1.1990. Consequent upon the tenancy agreement, a ration card has been obtained by the Applicant and the rent receipts have been issued by the landlady from time to time of Rs.35/- per month. Several of such rent receipts are produced. The Applicant is seen to have come into possession prior to the appointment of the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver could not have taken forcible possession from the Applicant. Whatever be the rights of the parties to the suit against the Applicant, the Applicant would have to be agitated in the competent Court. The possession of the Applicant shall have to be restored. 5.The argument of Mr.Warunjikar on behalf of the Plaintiff that it is based upon such contracts of transfer of tenancy executed by the husband of Defendant No.1 that the Plaintiff was driven to file the suit itself shows that these transfers had taken place prior to the filing of the suit and, therefore, the transferees based upon these transfers cannot be evicted as parties in unlawful possession who came into possession after the appointment of the Court Receiver. 6.The Applicant has further produced the electricity bills for the further years 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999. The Applicant is seen to have been in possession since 1990. 4 7.Consequently the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought. The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). 8.The Court Receiver shall not take any steps to recover possession of the suit premises from the Applicant. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)