JUDGMENT - J.A. PATIL, J.:---The applicant company has taken out this Chamber Summons under Order 21, Rule 90 of the C.P. Code for the following main reliefs:

(a) Delay, if any, in taking out this Chamber Summons be condoned.

(b) That the order dated 30th March, 2001 for sanction of sale of office premises situate at 3rd floor, Seksaria Chambers, 139, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400 023 in favour of plaintiff be set aside quash attachment if any levied thereon on 23rd November, 2000 or any other date be raised and warrant of sale if any be set aside pursuant thereto.

(c) Court Receiver High Court Bombay be directed to renter the demise premises if the possession is handed over to the plaintiff pursuant to the said order dated 30-3-01.

2. The applicant company is the owner and landlord of building known as "Seksaria Chambers", Opposite Commerce House, 139, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai- 023. The defendant company is a monthly tenant of the applicant in respect of the office premises bearing No. 307 situate on third floor of the said building. According to the applicant, the defendant was not paying rent since March, 1997 and also failed to use the demised premises. Therefore, the applicant terminated the tenancy of the defendant by a notice dated 3-5-2000 and a supplementary notice dated 12-5-2000. In the affidavit filed in support of the chamber summons on 25-6-2001, it is stated that the applicant intends to file eviction suit against the defendant for recovery of possession.

3. The plaintiff company had filed Summary Suit No. 4150 of 1997 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 66,92,814/-. In the said suit the plaintiff also took out Notice of Motion No. 3664 of 1998 on 5-12-1998 and prayed for attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 of the C.P. Code of the premises in occupation of the defendant. When the said Notice of Motion came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the defendant made a statement that the defendant would maintain status quo in relation to the premises in his occupation. In view of that statement no order was passed by the Court. The said suit came to be decreed partly on 16-2-2000, and the defendant company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 24 lacs to the plaintiff alongwith interest thereon. At the time of the final disposal of the suit, the learned Counsel for the defendant made a statement that the defendant was not prepared to continue with the statement made in Notice of Motion No. 3664 of 1998. The learned Judge, therefore, thought that in order to prevent execution of the decree being defeated by the defendant it was necessary to make the said Notice of Motion absolute. Accordingly, by the same order, the learned Judge appointed Court Receiver in respect of the demise premises of the defendant with a direction to the Court Receiver to take only formal possession and appoint the defendant as his agent on usual terms and conditions. Accordingly, the Court Receiver took formal possession of the demised premises on 3-3-2000. Thereafter, the plaintiff again took out Chamber Summons No. 366 of 2000 seeking a variation in the order dated 16-2-2000 therein the plaintiff made grievance that one Mr. Agrawal had been already put in possession of the demised premises as a sub-tenant. However, the said Agrawal filed an affidavit on behalf of the defendant stating that he was not a sub-tenant in the said premises. Consequently, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 28-3-2000, directed the Court Receiver to hold a bid between the plaintiff and defendant and to find out who was giving a better return for the utilisation of the demised premises. The order further provided that in the event the Receiver found that it is the plaintiff who is in a position to give better return, the Receiver was directed to appoint the plaintiff as his agent. By a subsequent order dated 5-5-2000, the learned Single Judge further directed the Court Receiver to proceed according to the earlier

Click Here to Read the rest of this document