- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29. 9. 2005 whereby and whereunder a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court held as under: (a) The Court Receiver is hereby discharged in respect of the premises, in case he has taken possession of the said premises pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in A. O. No. 1406 of 1991 or by the city Civil Court, in B. C. C. Suit No. 1407 of 1991, from any of the applicants or their officers. (b) Consequently the Court Receiver shall take steps to hand over the respective premises if in his possession as at present and by identifying the same in presence of the concerned applicant and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. (c) So far as the applicant No. 1 is concerned the Court Receiver shall determine the amount of royalty payable by it and the said amount shall be remitted by the said applicant within a period as determined by the court Receiver. It is clarified that determination of the royalty amount shall be in keeping with the orders passed by this Court from time to time. (d) The Court Receiver to take all further steps as are required to be taken on his discharge in respect of the premises covered by this order. (e) Needless to mention that the Court Receiver shall issue notice to all these parties for discharge as well as handing over of the respective premises. The basic fact of the matter does not appear to be much in dispute. Appellants herein are the owners of the suit premises. Respondent No. 5 was a tenant either of the whole of the suit property or a part thereof. According to Respondent No. 5, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are its sub-tenants whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are claiming over the suit premises independently. A fire broke out in the suit premises on 25. 8. 1985 and one of its portions got destroyed in the fire. As respondent No. 5 and/or its sub-tenants started raising constructions on the said premises or a part of it, the appellants filed a suit for injunction restraining respondent No. 5 from carrying on the construction activities in violation of the building Rules framed under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. By an order dated 15. 2. 1991, the City Civil Court, Bombay granted ad interim injunction. Some notices to stop unauthorized construction were also issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. By an order dated 29. 11. 1991, the City civil Court appointed a Receiver who admittedly took possession of the suit premises and thereafter sealed it.
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the Receiver states before us that the possession had been taken principally from respondent No. 5 and not from respondent Nos. 1 to 4. However, the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appears to be that they had been continuing in possession of part of the suit premises for a long time and on or about 9. 8. 1994, pursuant to the order of the Court dated 8. 8. 1994, they were dispossessed by the Court Receiver. Respondent No. 1 contends that by reason of order dated 15. 6. 1995 passed by the High Court in Civil Application No. 5660 of 1994, it was appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver. It appears that by order dated 3. 7. 1996, the High court held that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the appellants. Although the suit was directed to be returned but it appears that the same has not been done as yet and it is not presented before an appropriate court. However, the contempt proceedings are still pending. It appears that at several stages, the High court of Bombay and this Court had passed orders. It furthermore appears that the Director of Respondent No. 5 was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for violation of this Court's orders.;