12,500/ per month.
4 to 11 and directed the Court Receiver that if he would find third parties in possession of the premises of the building, he would appoint them as agents on usual terms including security and companypensation.
Portion highlighted for emphasis Pursuant to the above order the Court Receiver took symbolic possession of the properties on 27.3.1996.
The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the prayer.
M s Nikhil Diamonds and their partners as owners of the building and the premises therein through their companynsel appearing before the division bench stated that premises described as Shop No.
607 of 1995 in High Court of Bombay on its Original Side for recovery of loans advanced by them to respondent number 4 and its partners respondents number 5 to 11.
12,500/ per month.
M s Nikhil Diamonds Respondent No.
The present appellant along with other affected occupants filed Chamber Summons for setting aside the directions of the Court Receiver made on 12.5.1998.
828 situated at Parekh Market, Opera House, Bombay, was in possession of the appellant as a licensee tenant since nearly ten years.
The Banks as plaintiffs in the said Suit sought appointment of Court Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code for short for safe custody and proper management of the properties of the defendants.
The appellants companytention before the Court was that he being statutory tenant on a rent of Rs.2500/ per month and fixation of rent being subject regulated by the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 number repealed and succeeded by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 the Court Receiver, who had limited power to manage and administer the suit property, had numberright to increase the rent five times from Rs.2500/ to Rs.
The three Banks respondents number 1, 2 3 herein filed Suit No.
After hearing the appellant and other occupants of the premises he submitted a report to the Court recommending enhancement of the occupation charges of the premises in possession of the appellant to Rs.
In appeal the division bench of the Bombay High Court by its Order dated 03.11.1995, accepted the prayer of the Banks and appointed a Court Receiver on the properties which include the premises in question.
828 in Parekh Market, Opera House, Bombay.
4 herein admittedly owns amongst others the said premises in the market.
For the purpose of fixing the above amount as occupation charges or royalty, the Court Receiver relied on the Valuation Report submitted by the Valuer.
The learned Singh Judge by his order dated 4.8.1998 rejected objection of the appellant to the report of the Court Receiver and upheld enhancement of occupation charges of the premises on the ground that the appellants status as tenant of the premises had number been accepted by division bench of the Bombay High Court when it passed the order dated 3.11.1995 appointing Court Receiver.
J U D G M E N T Dharmadhikari J. The appellant claims to be in occupation as tenant of premises described as Shop No.
