Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Ord. in NM no.95119 in Suit no.210 of 2019
MHCC010025252019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
ORDER IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.951 OF 2019
CNR NO.MHCC010025252019
IN
SUIT NO.210 OF 2019
Mr. Amar Jairam Gera ...Plaintiff
V/s
Mr. Amol Ajit Pandit & Ors. ....Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(COURT ROOM NO.01)
DATE : 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
: Appearance:
Adv. Paras Vira for the plaintiff
Adv. Anand J. Jadhav for defendants
ORAL ORDER
By this notice of motion, the plaintiff prayed for grant of
injunction to restrain defendants from creating third party interest,
for an appointment of Court Receiver and not to dispossess the
plaintiff from the suit premises.
2. It is to be noted that, during the course of argument the
learned advocate for the plaintiff notpressed reliefs (a) and (c) i.e.,
seeking temporary injunction to restrain defendants from creating
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Ord. in NM no.95119 in Suit no.210 of 2019
third party interest and his dispossession at the hands of defendants.
3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that his deceased
father namely Jairam Gera had taken suit premises i.e. Flat/ Room
no.3, First floor, Plot No. 182, Pandit Villa Gaothan, Road no.3,
Chembur, Mumbai on rent from defendants. The plaintiff and his
father have paid rent till the month of June, 2018 to defendants.
Thereafter when the plaintiff tried to pay rent amount to defendants,
they have refused to accept the same.
4. It is further contention of the plaintiff that when the
plaintiff and his father i.e. deceased Jairam went to Pune on
25/12/2018 then in absence of the plaintiff and his father,
defendants on 08.01.2019 by breaking the lock of the suit premises
had taken forcible possession of it. Thereafter the plaintiff has filed
complaint against defendants with Chembur police station.
Accordingly FIR no.13/19 came to be registered against defendants.
The plaintiff prayed that, during pendency and final disposal of the
suit Court Receiver, High Court be appointed in respect of the suit
premises and he be appointed as an Agent of the Court Receiver.
5. Defendants no. 1 and 2 strongly opposed the notice of
motion by filing reply on affidavit. It is contention of defendants that
the father of the plaintiff was residing alone in the suit premises. The
plaintiff had shifted to Pune in the year 2014 and since then residing
their. The father of the defendant decided to shift at Pune with the
plaintiff. Therefore he has surrendered his tenancy rights to
defendants. Defendants denied forcible eviction of the plaintiff and
his father at their hands. It is submitted that there is no need of
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Ord. in NM no.95119 in Suit no.210 of 2019
appointment of Court Receiver of High Court in the present matter.
6. Heard both the learned advocates for the respective
parties. Perused the record.
7. Following points arise for my determination to which I
have recorded my findings with reasons as below:
Sr.No. Points Determination
1. Whether the plaintiff has made out
the case for appointment of Court
Receiver ?
No
2. What order ? As per final order.
REASONS
As to Point no.1:
8. It is main contention of the plaintiff that in absence of his
father and himself, defendants have taken forcible possession of the
suit premises. Therefore, during pendency and final disposal of the
suit, it is necessary to appoint Court Receiver. Here, it is to be noted
that the plaintiff has sought reliefs of temporary injunction in respect
of not creating third party interest and dispossession at the hands of
defendants before the Small Causes Court, in R.A.D. & R. Suit No.
537 of 2021. The Small Causes Court vide its Order dated
28/07/2021 refuses the relief claimed by the plaintiff.
9. Now admittedly defendants and respondents are in
possession of suit premises. It is also not disputed that defendants are
landlord of the suit premises. So far as the question of illegal dis
possession of the plaintiff is concerned, the same is to be decided on
merit. Nothing on record to show that defendants or respondents
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Ord. in NM no.95119 in Suit no.210 of 2019
exhausts the suit property or causes irreparable damages to it.
Nothing on record to show that there is any danger to the property in
question. Thus the question of appointment of
Court Receiver does not arise. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to made
out the case for an appointment of Court Receiver. Hence my answer
to point no.1 is in negative.
As to Point no.2:
10. In view of my above discussion, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
Notice of motion no.951/19 is rejected.
Notice of motion is disposed of accordingly.
(Virendra D. Kedar)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Court,Gr.Mumbai
Date:.06.07.2022 (C.R. No.1)
Dictated on : 06.07.2022
Transcribed on : 06.07.2022
Signed on : 06.07.2022
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Ord. in NM no.95119 in Suit no.210 of 2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE07.07.2022: NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(GI)
Mrs. V. V. Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri Virendra D. Kedar
(Court Room No.1)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT/ORDER 06.07.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 06.07.2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 06.07.2022
-- 5 of 5 --