1 927.CRR-60-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 60 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 3123 OF 2010. Mrs. Ramona Pinto nee D’Souza. ..Plaintiff. vs. Ms. Harjinder Kaur @ Soni Singh & Anr. ..Defendants. .... Mr. Chetan Kapadia, a/w. Esther Joshua, i/b. Little & Co., for Plaintiff. Mr. G.G. Ketkar, First Assistant to Court Receiver. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL 2011. P.C. : In the above Suit, the Plaintiff has sought a declaration that the Defendant No.1 is a rank trespasser in the Suit shop and has further sought a decree against the Defendant No. 1 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit shop to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also sought a decree against the Defendant No.1 in the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. By present Notice of Motion No. 3508 of 2010, the Plaintiff had sought appointment of Court Receiver and an injunction against the Defendant No.1, qua the Suit shop. On 11th January 2011, when the Notice of Motion was called out, none appeared for the Defendant No.1. By a detailed order dated 11th January 2011, ad- interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (b) of the Notice 2 927.CRR-60-11 of Motion and the Notice of Motion was made returnable on 1st February 2011. On 1st February 2011 once again none appeared for the Defendant No.1. Thereafter, by an order dated 1st February 2011, the Court Receiver was granted liberty to break open the lock on the premises and prepare an inventory of articles, furnitures, etc. lying in the Suit shop and seal the same. Pursuant to the said order, the Court Receiver has taken possession of the Suit shop by breaking open the lock. From the photographs produced before the Court, it is clear that the Defendant No.1 had started refurbishing the Suit shop but without completing the work has abandoned the Suit shop by leaving the same in a very bad state/condition. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff now submits that possession of the Suit shop be handed over to the Plaintiff as an Agent of the Court Receiver without security deposit and or royalty. He submits that if the Suit shop is left unattended, the same will further deteriorate as there is already seepage of water in the Suit shop from the outer wall of the building. 4. In view of the facts recorded in the order dated 11th January 2011 and after going through the photographs submitted by the Plaintiff, I pass the following order :- (i) The Court Receiver shall hand over the possession of the Suit shop to the Plaintiff who shall use and occupy the same as his Agent on usual terms and conditions. However, the Court Receiver shall not insist on any security deposit or payment of royalty. (ii) The Plaintiff shall directly pay to the Society the regular outgoings/ maintenance charges and shall also pay the electricity bills, etc. which are required to be paid on regular basis 3 927.CRR-60-11 qua the Suit shop. (iii) The Plaintiff shall be at liberty to complete the repair/refurbishing work in the Suit shop. However, the Plaintiff shall not carry out any structural repair/ changes in the Suit shop. (iv) The Court Receiver’s Report is accordingly disposed of. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]