ASN 1 NMS-2186.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2186 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1848 OF 1999 Mineshkumar D. Mistry. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Mrs. Naina V. Mistry and ors. ..Defendants. Ms. Puja Tukrel i/by Raj Baid for Plaintiff. Mr. K.D.Shah for Defendant No.2. Mr. Kantilal M.Mehta for Defendant No.3. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT , J. DATE : 18th April, 2011 PC : By the above mentioned Notice of Motion defendant No.3 seeks a relief that the Court Receiver be directed to accept his offer of Rs.6500/- as monthly royalty for conducting the suit business of M/s. Perfect Watch Co. at 15, Kavarana Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai. The above suit has been filed for administration of the estate of the deceased Sumitraben. The plaintiff and the defendants are the family members, being sons of the said deceased Sumitraben. Defendant No.2 who is one of the elder brothers of the applicant has been appointed as agent of the Court Receiver on payment of royalty of Rs.3300/-.The applicant has filed the above motion pursuant to the ASN 2 NMS-2186.sxw liberty granted by this Court (Coram R.Y.Ganoo, J.) by order dated 31.3.2009 whereby the learned Judge has observed that if any of the parties to the suit want that the royalty amount should be increased, such a party should take out a notice of motion. It is required to be noted that the building in which the premises in question are situated is being redeveloped under D. C. Regulation 33(7). The Housing Society comprising of the residents of the said building as well as the occupants of the commercial premises in the said building and the developers had filed Chamber Summons No.86/2009 in which an order came to be passed on 28.3.2011 by which order the modalities for redevelopment of the property which includes the shop premises in question was worked out. It is also required to be noted that the Court Receiver by his report dated 26.12.2007 has observed that the parties have consented that rebidding of Shop No.15 to be done after reconstruction so that maximum royalty can be fetched. 2 There can be no quarrel with the proposition sought to be advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the applicant that the higher royalty would ennure to the benefit of the estate. However, it is required to be borne in mind that the shop premises is required to be vacated and defendant No.2 who is the agent of the Court Receiver would resultantly have to be look out for some other premises where he can temporarily do the business under the name and style of M/s. Perfect Watch Co. It is in the said context, the amounts payable under the development agreement is directed to be paid over to defendant No.2 as the agent of the Court Receiver. Though the said order was made ASN 3 NMS-2186.sxw subject to the result of the instant Notice of Motion being No.2186 of 2009. in my view, considering the fact that redevelopment process is to be implemented and since the shop premises in question would be demolished, the endeavor to fetch higher royalty by rebidding of shop No.15 would have to wait till such time as the redevelopment is complete and the shop premises are handed over back to the Court Receiver. In that view of the matter no reliefs can be granted in the present Notice of Motion. 3 In view of the fact that defendant No.2 who is the agent has to receive certain amounts from the developers towards the rent and towards the loss of business, the defendant No.1 is therefore directed to file an affidavit stating the alternative premises which he has acquired and the rent he is paying for the said premises. Same to be done within eight weeks from date. Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of. However, the suit would be placed for directions on 4.7.2011 only for the above limited purpose. R.M. SAVANT, J.