JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Defendant No. 1 has called upon me to decide whether the amount of royalty/compensation should exceed the amount of rent payable by the tenant to the landlord.

2.The facts which have been briefly stated by A.P. Shah, J., in his order dated 2nd August, 1995 in Notice of Motion No. 1877 of 1991 in Suit No. 2683 of 1991 are that the plaintiff and the defendants are the children of late Chimanlal and Shantaben, who died in 1951 and 1975 respectively. Since the deceased had left property, the present suit came to be filed for administration of the estate of the deceased and for partition of joint family property. The plaintiff had taken out a Notice of Motion for appointment of Court Receiver and injunction. The learned Judge has enumerated the different properties in paragraph 3 of his order. In the present case, we are concerned only with Shop No. 6 in R.K. Building No. 3 Co-operative Housing Society, which is admittedly in occupation of the defendant No. 1 and the tenancy of the said Shop No. 6 stood in the name of the deceased Chimanlal. According to the prima facie observation of the learned Judge, there was some case in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Shop No. 6 and, therefore, he was pleased to appoint Court Receiver for the tenancy rights in respect of the Shop No. 6 also, while appointing Court Receiver for the other Estate of the deceased. He further directed the Court Receiver to appoint the first defendant as his Agent in respect of Shop No. 6 on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Receiver, but without any security. Accordingly, the learned Judge was pleased to dispose of the Notice of Motion. The aforesaid order of the learned Judge was carried in appeal, but the Appeal Court had dismissed the Appeal on 8th April, 1996. It appears that the Court Receiver had fixed an ad-hoc royalty for the Shop No. 6 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month and the Court Receiver called upon the defendant No. 1 to pay the sum of Rs. 55,000/- for the period from August 1995 to June 1996 towards the amount of royalty. This order dated 7th June, 1996 of the Court Receiver was questioned by the first defendant in his letter dated 19th June, 1996, raising a point that the amount of royalty could not exceed the rent payable to the landlord, which was Rs. 169/- per month. He relied on an order of the Division Bench of this Court, presided over by the then Chief Justice, Shri P.D. Desai, sitting with Shri Justice Arvind Savant. The first defendant, therefore, through his Advocate, requested the Court Receiver to reconsider the amount of royalty and fix the same at Rs. 169.00 per month only. After an exchange of letters between the parties and the Court Receiver, it appears that on 10th April, 1997, an order was passed by Smt. K.K. Baam, J., in another Notice of Motion, whereby the Court Receiver was inter alia directed to fix the final royalty within a month from 10th April, 1997. The Court Receiver was also directed to take forcible possession of the premises if the defendant failed to deposit the amount as stated in the order. The parties were further directed to cooperate with the Court Receiver in finalising the amount of royalty. The Court Receiver being in doubt about the final amount of royalty appointed a valuer to submit his Valuation Report to enable the Court Receiver to fix final amount of royalty. Vide the Valuation Report submitted by the Valuer, the amount of royalty should be Rs. 7,000/- per month. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff questioned the property of the valuer's suggestion of Rs. 7,000/- as royalty and he suggested Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 14,000/- to be the final royalty of the shop premises which measured about 350 sq.ft. There appears to be some difference between the parties regarding the measurement of the premises, though, however, we are not presently concerned with such a difference. The figure of Rs. 7,000/- suggested by the Valuer was reduced by the Court Receiver t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document