MRS. S. GEETHA Vs. MR. LOKESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court assailing the notice dated 19.05.2016 impugned in both these petitions.

(2.) The petitioners herein claim to be the tenants/lessee in occupation of the petition schedule premises. Respondent No. 2 who had advanced amounts to respondent No.1 who admittedly is the owner of the petition schedule premises, being the secured asset was brought to auction for recovery of the said amount. In that regard, respondent No. 2 having obtained the award had initiated the proceedings before the High Court, Bombay in Arbitration Petition (L) No. 267/2015 and Arbitration petition No. 542/2015. In the said proceedings, the Court Receiver had issued the notice dated 19.05.2016 for the purpose of taking possession of the premises in question. It is in that regard the petitioners in these two petitions claiming to have entered into the respective agreements of lease dated 09.04.2011 and 18.02.2013 approached this Court contending that they have paid advance amounts as indicated in the said documents to respondent No.1 herein and in that light are entitled to continue in possession of the said premises. This Court on taking note of such contention had granted the interim order of protecting the physical possession as claimed by the petitioners.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 on appearance has filed the statement of objections to the petition. Along with the objection, respondent No. 2 has filed the report of the Commissioner appointed by the High Court, Bombay in the said proceedings to indicate that as per the report at Annexure-R.2 the possession of the premises had been taken before the interim order granted by this Court. It is further contended in the objection statement that though this was the position, the petitioners herein taking advantage of the interim order granted by this Court have thereafter taken illegal possession of the premises in question which in fact has been reported through the report at Annexure-R.3 to the petition. In that light it is contended that when respondent No. 2 herein does not admit the possession of the petitioners as tenants and they have only created the documents to aid respondent No. 1 herein in defeating the right of respondent No. 2, the right as claimed in the present proceedings would not be justified is the contention.