SMITA PRAKASH CHIKHALE AND ANR Vs GAJANAN YASHWANT KHATU

name and style of "Shree Bidi Works". It is the case of the Plaintiff that the said Dharnidhar Chikhale handed over to him the entire business of the said Shree Bidi Works within two years of the Plaintiff joining him, which required the Plaintiff to be present in the shop till late hours. It is the case of the Plaintiff that apart from salary the said Dharnidhar Chikhale had promised to pay him overtime. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he only took money which he required and kept the rest of the amount with Dharnidhar Chikhale as he trusted him immensely. It is the case of the Plaintiff that by 1990-1991, the amount accumulated in the name of the Plaintiff was around Rs.5,00,000/-. On the Plaintiff asking for the said accumulated amount, Dharnidhar Chikhale expressed his inability to give him the said amount. He however made an offer that he can start his business in half of the shop and simultaneously look after the business of Shree Bidi Works. The Plaintiff accepted the said offer and accordingly commenced his typewriting business. The Plaintiff therefore started managing the business of Shree Bidi Works as well as started the business of Shree Typing Works. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he paid Rs.2000/- to Dharnidhar Chikhale as royalty for permitting him to use the premises. The said Dharnidhar Chikhale suddenly died of heart attack in the year

1994.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that after the death of Dharnidhar BGP. 3 of 24

3

Chikhale, the Plaintiff approached Prakash the son of Dharnidhar Chikhale and informed him about the arrangement between his father and the Plaintiff. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the said Prakash also asked the Plaintiff to continue the said business arrangement. However, he requested the Plaintiff to increase the royalty to Rs.3000/- per month over and above the income from the business of the said Shree Bidi Works. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Prakash was facing financial stringency and the Plaintiff was therefore giving him money from time to time. It is the case of the Plaintiff that from the year 1994 to 2004 the Plaintiff had in all given Prakash an amount totalling to Rs.10,00,000/-. It is the case of the Plaintiff that sometime around June 2005 Prakash asked the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of sudden need. The Plaintiff however reluctantly agreed to give him Rs.3,75,000/- on condition that he is allowed to use the entire premises by winding up the said business of Shree Bidi Works. Prakash accepted the said proposal of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff accordingly paid him Rs.2,00,000/- by six cheques drawn on Sahyadri Sahakari Bank and also paid Prakash Rs.1,75,000/- by cash. The Plaintiff and Prakash accordingly executed a Samjhauta Patra. By the said Samjhauta Patra the said Prakash accepted that he had put the Plaintiff in exclusive possession of the shop. It was also agreed that the said arrangement would continue till Prakash paid the entire amount of BGP. 4 of 24

4

Rs.18,75,000/-. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he installed computers etc. and also got done interior work of the shop. The Plaintiff also allowed the said Prakash to earn his own income by allowing him to use one table space in the suit premises and operate one of his Computers for making his own living by doing Marathi and English typing work. The said Prakash died on 31.07.2011. It is the case of the Plaintiff that after the death of said Prakash, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 started questioning the Plaintiff and also demanded more money from him. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he showed them the writing dated 05.10.2005 i.e. Samjhauta Patra. The Defendants however threatened the Plaintiff with dire consequences. The same constrained the Plaintiff to lodge a complaint with L. T. Marg Police Station on 24.10.2011. The Plaintiff also filed one more complaint with the Police Station on 14.11.2011. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on 16.11.2011 a group of persons or hirelings of the Defendants came to the suit property and asked the Plaintiff to sign a paper in which it was mentioned that he had handed over the possession. The Plaintiff was constrained to sign the said paper in view of the physical threat given to him. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on the said evening he locked the shop and left. However, on the next morning when the Plaintiff went to the shop he could not open the lock as he found that the locks were changed. He accordingly lodged a complaint with the L. T. BGP. 5 of 24

5

Marg Police Station. It is his case that the local Police did not take cognizance of his complaint. It is further his case that on 21.11.2011 when he went to the shop he was not allowed to enter the same which has constrained him to file the instant suit being Short Cause Suit No.2182 of

2012.

4. In the suit, the Plaintiff has narrated the facts as aforestated leading to his alleged dispossession on 16.11.2011. The Plaintiff in support of his case has relied upon various documents which have been annexed to the plaint amongst which is the Samjhauta Patra dated 05.10.2005. The sum and substance of the case of the Plaintiff was that he was in exclusive possession of the suit premises wherein the business in the name and style of Shree Typing Center was carried out. The Plaintiff has made averments in respect of the manner in which he was dispossessed on 16.11.2011. The principal relief sought in the plaint is to the effect that the possession of the suit premises namely the shop situated on the ground floor, Botawala Building, 481, Kalbadevi Rod, Mumbai- 400 002 be restored to the Plaintiff to enable him to carry on his business of Shree Typing Center. The Plaintiff has also sought an injunction for restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants and persons claiming through them from disturbing the Plaintiff's possession, enjoyment and use of the suit premises after he is put in possession pursuant to the decree BGP. 6 of 24

6

that would be passed in the suit.

5. To the said suit, the Defendants filed their Written Statement. As indicated above, the Defendant No.1 is the wife of the said Prakash, whereas the Defendant No.2 is his mother and the wife of the late Dharnidhar Chikhale who was the original tenant and father of Prakash. The case put up by the Defendants in their Written Statement is one of total denial. It is the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit premises on 16.11.2011 and in fact it is their case that though initially he was helping Dharnidhar Chikhale in carrying out the business of Shree Bidi Works, the Plaintiff's services were terminated sometime in the year 1982-1983 and that the said Dharnidhar Chikhale was thereafter carrying out business on his own. It is therefore the case of the Defendants that right from the year 1982-1983, the Plaintiff had stopped coming to the suit premises. It was also the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff would occasionally make a visit to the shop to pay a courtesy call on Dharnidhar Chikhale. The case of the Plaintiff that he was in exclusive possession of the premises is sought to be denied by the Defendants in fact as indicated hereinabove, the Defendants have denied the fact that the Plaintiff was in possession on 16.11.2011. The Defendants have also relied upon documents in support of their case that they are in possession.

BGP. 7 of 24

7

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues :-

"1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that he was in lawful use, occupation and possession of the suit premises i.e. shop situated on the ground floor of the building known as Botawala Building, 481, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002, from where he was carrying on business of Shree Typing Centre till 16^thNovember 2011 ?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants from the suit premises on or about 17^thNovember 2011 without following due process of law, in the circumstances mentioned in para 4 of he plaint and is hence entitled to the restoration of possession of the suit premises ?

3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit premises was in exclusive possession of the defendant no.2's husband and after his death in the exclusive use, occupation and possession of the defendant no.2 and Prakash Chikhale, the husband of defendant no.1 ?

4) Whether the Plaintiff's suit is maintainable against the defendants/tenants ?"

7. In so far as the issue No.3 is concerned, it seems that the Defendants had applied for recasting of the issue which application came to be rejected by the Trial Court and consequently the said issue No.3 itself was deleted and what remained was therefore issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 which were answered by the Trial Court in the affirmative in favour of the Plaintiff. In so far as issue No.3 is concerned, though the said issue has been answered, there are no reasons recorded in the body of the order in BGP. 8 of 24

8

so far as the said issue No.3 is concerned.

8. In so far as the evidence led by the parties is concerned, on behalf of the Plaintiff as many as twelve witnesses including himself were examined. The Defendants examined five witnesses in assertion of their case that the Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit premises and that they were in possession on 16.11.2011. In so far as the Plaintiff is concerned, the witnesses examined were on the point of proving the document dated 05.10.2005 i.e. Samjhauta Patra, the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- made to Prakash vide the cheques drawn on the Sahyadri Sahakari Bank Ltd. i.e. his daughter's account, on the point of Plaintiff carrying out the business in the name of Shree Typing Center which evidence included the evidence of the Plaintiff's customers on the point of the incident taking place on 16.11.2011 and the threats issued to the Plaintiff.

9. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence which has come on record has recorded a finding that the evidence of PW-8 to PW-12 is cogent and remained unshaken and fortifying the case of the Plaintiff that he was running the business of Shree Typing Center from the suit premises till he was dispossessed on 16.11.2011. The Trial Court has observed that the testimony of the Defendants and their witnesses is self contradictory BGP. 9 of 24

9

which renders the same quite doubtful and improbable. The Trial Court therefore held that the case of the Plaintiff appears to be more reliable and creditworthy than the case of the Defendants. The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit and directed the Defendants to restore the possession to the Plaintiff. As indicated above, it is the said judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 which is taken exception to by way of the above Petition.

10. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

11. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

APPLICANTS MR. JAYESH BHATT :-

I) That the Trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit when the evidence on record does not discloses that the Plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit premises.

II) The Plaintiff has not fulfilled the essential requisites for a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in as much as the suit premises have not been properly described and therefore, the Trial Court could not have decreed the suit. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2012 SC 1727 in the matter of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and ors Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs. and AIR 1975 Jammu and Kashmir 47 in the matter of

Munshi Vs. Mangoo. BGP. 10 of 24

10

III) That a decree for joint possession could not have been passed in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In support of the said contention, the Leaned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court reported in

AIR 1975 Jammu and Kashmir 47 in the matter of Munshi Vs. Mangoo, wherein a Learned Single Judge held that a decree for joint possession outside the purview of the said Section 9 of the old Specific Relief Act which is pari-materia to the present Section 6.

IV) That the documents on which the Plaintiff himself relies disclose that the Plaintiff was not in exclusive possession but was in joint possession with the said Prakash Chikhale and therefore the Plaintiff could not be put in exclusive possession of the suit premises. This in fact was the principal contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicants.

V) That the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit premises were tenanted premises on which Dharnidhar Chikhale was the tenant and that a suit is already pending in the Small Causes Court filed by the landlords against the Defendants for their eviction and therefore, if the possession is to be restored to the Plaintiff pursuant to the decree passed in the present suit, the same is likely to prejudice the Defendants in the suit pending in the Small Causes Court.

12. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

BGP. 11 of 24

11

RESPONDENT (ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF) MS. D. S. RETIWALA :-

I) That the case of the Defendants as set out in the Written Statement was one of total denial i.e. the Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit premises on 16.11.2011 and therefore the Defendants now cannot be permitted to change their stand.

II) That the Defendants cannot be heard to say that the suit premises have not been properly described, when they have participated in the proceedings and proceeded on the basis of the description given in the plaint.

III) That the Trial Court has rightly rejected the case of the Defendants on account of the inherent contradictions which has come in the testimony of their witnesses which the Trial Court has referred to in its judgment.

IV) That the Plaintiff was in exclusive possession after the death of Prakash in July 2011 and therefore on the day when the Plaintiff was dispossessed he was in exclusive possession of the suit premises.

V) That the evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff leads to only one conclusion that it is the Plaintiff who was in possession and carrying out business in the name and style of Shree Typing Center. The Trial Court has therefore rightly disbelieved the evidence adduced on behalf of the Defendants.

VI) That since in a suit filed under Section 6 the defining aspect is only BGP. 12 of 24

12

prior possession, the Trial Court has rightly refused to go into the aspect of title in respect of the suit premises.

CONSIDERATION

13. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. I have considered the rival contentions. Since the instant suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the question that is required to addressed first is whether the Plaintiff has proved that he was in possession of the suit premises prior to 16.11.2011 and whether he has been forcibly dispossessed on the said day. As indicated hereinabove, the Plaintiff has examined as many as eleven witnesses including himself in support of his claim that he was in possession prior to 16.11.2011 and that he was dispossessed on the said day. It would therefore be apposite to briefly refer to the said evidence. In so far as the evidence of the Plaintiff himself is concerned, he has testified in terms of his case set out in the plaint. On the point of the Plaintiff carrying out the business in the name and style of Shree Typing Center is concerned, the Plaintiff has examined his customers i.e. Pawankumar Dhand who is an advocate who stated in his evidence that he would get the typing work done from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also examined Dattatray Jagtap Treasurer of the Mathadi Kamgar Mandal who also deposed along the similar lines. The Plaintiff has then examined Umesh Jhaveri a small businessman and Kamlesh BGP. 13 of 24

13

Manshani who also does business. Both Umesh Jhaveri and Kamlesh Manshani deposed as regards the typing they used to get done from the Plaintiff. The said witness Umesh Jhaveri PW-12 has also deposed that he was a witness to the incident which took place on 16.11.2011 when some 20-25 goons along with one lady had come to get the suit premises vacated from the Plaintiff.

14. The Plaintiff has also examined Narendra Deshmukh who is a computer hardware and network Engineer and who also runs a business in the name and style of 'Siddhi Computers' dealing in computers, peripherals, laptops, desktop etc. The said witness has testified that he had supplied computer peripherals and accessories to the Plaintiff and that he used to service the Plaintiff's computers. The Plaintiff has also examined the photographer Joseph Polekad who had taken photographs showing the Plaintiff in occupation of the suit premises. The evidence of the aforestated witnesses therefore is on the point of the Plaintiff being in occupation and carrying out business in the name and style of Shree Typing Center in the suit premises.

15. The Plaintiff has also examined the Bank officials Devram Nipane, Manager of Bank of India, Kalbadevi Branch where the Plaintiff has an account and Madhav Hule Senior Manager of the Sahyadri BGP. 14 of 24

14

Sahakari Bank Ltd. in which Bank the Plaintiff's minor daughter Shweta had an account. The said witnesses are examined on the aspect of payment made to the late Dharnidhar as also the late Prakash. In so far as the Samjhauta Patra i.e. document dated 05.10.2005 is concerned, the Plaintiff has examined the Notary, Mohd. Nazir Naqvi who has testified as regards the execution of the said Samjhauta Patra before him. It is on the basis of his testimony which corroborated the testimony of the Plaintiff as regards the execution of the Samjhauta Patra that the said document has been held to be proved.

16. Now coming to the evidence of the Defendants. The Defendants examined in all five witnesses including the Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 has testified in keeping with the case of the Defendants in the written statement. She has denied any cash transaction between her husband and the Plaintiff or about the alleged hospitalization of the son of the Plaintiff. She claims to have learnt about the transaction between her husband Prakash and Plaintiff before his death in the year 2011. The Defendants have examined one Anil Salvi who is a typist and who according to them was working for Prakash as a typist from 11.01.2010 till the suit shop was sealed in November 2011. He has testified that he used to remain present in the shop from 10.00 a.m. to

8.00 p.m. The Defendants have also examined one Ganesh Shinde who BGP. 15 of 24

15

testified that he had annual maintenance contract with the deceased Prakash which was renewed by the Defendant No.1 in the year 2012. However in the cross-examination the said witness admitted that he had no document to support his said claim and though he resided within 70 to 80 meters away from the Defendants house he could not state when Prakash expired and what was the first name of the Defendant No.1. The Defendants also examined one Candida D'souza who is a resident of Botawala Building wherein the suit premises are located. She has testified to the effect that she used to visit the suit shop since childhood and had seen Prakash sitting there several times. She also stated that she has seen Defendant No.1 Smita in the shop presently and that she talks to her sometimes. However when confronted with the photograph of the shop, she could not identify it, as the same shop which are the suit premises. The last witness of the Defendants was a official from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai one Ashok Tambe whose evidence was adduced to prove the inspection reports. However, it has come in his evidence that no register is maintained of the inspection reports and that the inspection reports are prepared on the basis of the information provided on site.

17. The Trial Court having regard to the evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendants has recorded a finding that the BGP. 16 of 24

16

testimony of the witnesses of the Plaintiff appears to be quite cogent and has been unshaken in the cross-examination. The said evidence according to the Trial Court, of the persons who are the customers of the said typing center as also the persons connected with the said typing center in various capacities, fortify the case of the Plaintiff that he was running the same from the suit premises till November 2011. As regards the evidence adduced on behalf of the Defendants is concerned, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the evidence is self-contradictory which renders the same quite doubtful and makes the case of the Defendants improbable. The Trial Court therefore concluded that the Plaintiff's case appears to be more reliable and creditworthy than that of the Defendants and hence the Trial Court deemed it fit to accept the case of the Plaintiff that he was running the business of Shree Typing Center in the suit shop till 2011.

18. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants i.e. Applicants herein Mr. Jayesh Bhatt sought to challenge the finding of the Trial Court in so far as the said Samjhauta Patra is concerned. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel that though the Samjhauta Patra according to the Plaintiff was executed on 05.10.2005, it does not find any mention in the complaints made by the Plaintiffs to the Police either in October 2011 or in November 2011 and it is for the first time that the said document has surfaced in the suit. It was also the submission of the BGP. 17 of 24

17

Learned Counsel that the said document could not be said to be proved. Though it is true that there is no mention of said document in the complaints made by the Plaintiff to the Police. The efficacy of the said document in so far as the case of the Plaintiff is concerned, cannot be determined on the said basis. The said document records the financial transaction which took place between the Plaintiff and the said Prakash in the matter of the Plaintiff advancing an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to the said Prakash. It is not as if that the Plaintiff was put in possession pursuant to the said document. The Plaintiff's case is that he was always in possession, which possession was traceable to the arrangement between the Plaintiff and the father of the said Prakash late Dharnidhar Chikhale. The said document therefore is not the only piece of evidence on which the Plaintiff's case that he was in possession of the suit premises depends upon. In so far as the proof of the said document is concerned, the Plaintiff is a signatory to the said document and is therefore an executant of the said document. The said document was sought to be proved by adducing evidence of the Notary, Mohd. Nazir Naqvi before whom the said document was executed. The said Notary has identified that the said document was executed before him, though he does not recognize the persons who had come to execute the document. This was bound to be as the Notary cannot be expected to recognize a stranger who had come to BGP. 18 of 24

18

execute a document before him almost five years prior to his evidence being recorded. The Trial Court has therefore rightly concluded that the said document stands proved and can be relied upon for a collateral purpose for drawing a conclusion as regards the arrangement or understanding arrived at between the parties. In so far as the said document is concerned, it is also required to be noted that the case of the Defendants was one of total denial. However, confronted with the fact of the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- vide the six cheques mentioned in the said document, the Defendant No.1 had to accept the fact that payment was in fact received. However, the said payment was sought to be justified on the ground that the said payment was made by the Plaintiff for return of the loan which the Plaintiff had taken from the said Prakash. The Trial Court in my view, has rightly concluded that the Defendants cannot approbate and reprobate i.e. on the one hand deny the execution of the said document and on the other hand accept the payment made under the said document but deny the purpose for which the payment was made. The aforesaid fact is therefore one more instance on the basis of which it can be said that the said document stands proved.

19. The Trial Court has also rightly drawn an adverse inference against the Defendants for not producing the diaries Exh.108/ 1 & 2 as they are not free of doubt.

BGP. 19 of 24

19

20. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants Mr. Jayesh Bhatt sought to contend that the Plaintiff could not be put in exclusive possession of the suit premises as the documents on which the Plaintiff relies show that the said Prakash was in joint possession with the Plaintiff. It was further the submission of the Learned Counsel that in the guise of the decree passed in the instant suit, the Defendants cannot be ousted from possessing their own premises. In so far as the said aspect is concerned, as indicated above the Plaintiff in the plaint has traced the history as to how he has come in possession of the suit premises and that how he was put in exclusive possession of the suit premises after the Samjhauta Patra was executed on 05.10.2005. The said case of the Plaintiff has been denied by the Defendants. It is required to be noted that the Defendants have merely denied that the Plaintiff was in exclusive possession, it is not their case that the Defendants were in joint possession on 16.11.2011 i.e. on the day when the Plaintiff was dispossessed. In fact, as mentioned hereinabove, issue No.3 which was framed by the Trial Court was deleted by the Trial Court by order dated 26.06.2014 which order was not challenged by the Defendants by filing any proceeding and therefore the Defendants accepted the position that such an issue as issue No.3 originally framed was not required to be framed in the suit. If the Defendants were claiming to be in joint possession, the same is not borne BGP. 20 of 24

20

out by their pleadings by way of averments made in the written statement nor did the Defendants seek any amendment in the written statement nor seek any alternate relief by filing any counterclaim. In the absence of any pleadings and any issue framed in that behalf, it is not possible to accept the claim of the Defendants that they were in joint possession on 16.11.2011 and therefore, even if the Plaintiff is to be put in possession it can be only along with the Defendants. Now coming to the judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Munshi's case (supra). In the said case, a suit was filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, which provision was pari materia to the present Section 6. It was alleged by the Plaintiff who was a co-owner in a piece of land, that he was dispossessed from part of the land admeasuring 10 marlas out of the concerned Khasra. It was the case of the Plaintiff that he was in exclusive possession of the whole of the land out of which he was dispossessed from the part admeasuring 10 marlas. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were brothers. The Defendant set up a defence that he was in exclusive possession of the whole of the land admeasuring 1 kanal and 14 marlas. The Trial Court came to a conclusion that the parties were in joint possession, however granted a decree of "Khas" possession (i.e. exclusive possession) to the Plaintiff in respect of the said 10 marlas. The decree of the Trial Court was found fault with by the Learned Single Judge BGP. 21 of 24

21

of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court who held that the Trial Court had erred in decreeing the suit after coming to a conclusion that the parties were in joint possession. The Learned Single Judge held that under Section 9, no decree would be passed for a joint possession; having regard to the object with which Section 9 has been enacted.

21. In my view, the judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Munshi's case (supra) does not further the case of the Defendants as in the instant case the Plaintiff has claimed to be in exclusive possession and the Trial Court has not recorded any finding that the parties were in joint possession.

22. In so far as the contention urged on behalf of the Defendants that the suit property is not properly described is concerned, it is required to be noted that the Defendants have not raised any such plea in their written statement. The Defendants have proceeded on the basis of the description given in the plaint and participated in the proceedings. The parties can therefore be said to be aware as to in respect of which premises they were litigating. The Defendants therefore cannot be heard to now contend that the description of the suit property was not proper. Hence, the judgment of the Apex Court in Maria Fernandes's case has no application.

BGP. 22 of 24

22

23. Since the decree passed in a suit filed under Section 6 is based on prior possession, it is always open for the party claiming title to file a suit for possession based on title. If any such suit is filed, needless to state that the same would have to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations and finding recorded in the instant suit.

24. For the reasons aforestated, the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any error of jurisdiction or any other illegality or infirmity for this Court to exercise its Revisionary Jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. In view thereof, the Civil Application does not survive and to accordingly stand disposed of.

[R.M. SAVANT, J]

26.11.2015 (At the time of pronouncement of judgment)

1. The Receiver who was appointed by the order dated 28^th January 2014 and who is in possession of the premises in question to hand over possession to the Respondent herein. The Respondent herein to pay the Receiver's charges and expenses. On possession being handed over, the Receiver to stand discharged without passing of accounts.

2. At this stage the Learned Counsel for the Applicants applies BGP. 23 of 24

23

for stay of the instant judgment. However, the interest of justice would be served if the Receiver is directed not to hand over possession for a period of six weeks, subject to the orders that would be passed by the Apex Court.

[R.M. SAVANT, J]

BGP. 24 of 24

24