JUDGMENT - VAZIFDAR S.J., J.:---The chamber summons is to set aside the attachment levied pursuant to a warrant of attachment dated 17th November, 2000 in so far as it relates to the goodwill and suit premises and incidental reliefs.

2. On 16th February, 2002 the suit was decreed in the sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- with interest at 36% per annum from the date of the promissory note on which the suit was filed i.e. 3-11-1994 till the date of filing of the suit and further interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation on the sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- along with costs.

3. On 17-11-2000 a warrant of attachment was issued by this Court. The plaintiff had applied for execution of the decree by attachment of the moveable property belonging to and in the possession of the defendant including the defendants right, title and interest in the goodwill of the business together with tenancy rights of the said business as a going concern. The attachment in respect thereof was levied on 12th December, 2000. The plaintiff, by its Advocates letter dated 13th December, 2000 informed the applicant of the said decree and the warrant of attachment dated 17th November, 2000 and the fact that the tenantable premises of the defendant along with their right, title and interest to use, occupy and possess the same were attached by this Court. The defendant, by her Advocates letter dated 21st December, 2000 replied to the aforesaid letter. As the contents of the letter form the basis of her case in the present chamber summons, it is not necessary to narrate the same at this stage.

4. The applicant took out the present chamber summons on 24th July, 2001.

The applicants case is that she is a tenant of the said premises. By an agreement dated 1st June, 1970 the applicant entered into an agreement of leave and licence for 11 months with the defendant. Thereafter, the applicant and the defendant entered into a further leave and licence agreement dated 1st March, 1973. On 1st June, 1978 the applicant filed R.A.E. Suit No. 308/5183 in the Small Causes Court at Bombay. On 25th/26th July, 1996 the learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court passed a decree for ejectment against the defendant. In 1996 the defendant filed an appeal being Appeal No. 486 of 1996 challenging the decree dated 25th/26th July, 1996. The appeal is pending. By an order dated 17th April, 1998 the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court stayed the execution of the decree till further orders. The stay is presently in operation.

5. On 8th January, 2001 the plaintiffs herein made an application to be joined as a party in Appeal No. 486 of 1996. The application was allowed by an order dated 20th April, 2001 passed by the Small Causes Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed Civil Revision Application No. 988 of 2001 before this Court which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to agitate their contentions in appropriate proceedings after the present chamber summons is finally decided. It is in these circumstances that the applicant filed the present chamber summons.

6. Mr. Palan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that as the defendant was the applicants sub-tenant it has no disposing power over the said premises. Accordingly, he submitted, the same cannot be attached and sold in execution of the said decree. The attachment according to him is therefore liable to be set aside under Order XXI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the proviso to section 60 of the C.P.C. was not exhaustive and, if the execution and sale of any property is barred under statute, the same also could not be attached and sold in execution despite the fact that it is not one of the properties mentioned in the proviso to section 60. Lastly, Mr. Palan submitted that the defendant did not have any saleable goodwill or tenancy rights in respect of the said premises.

7. Mr. Palans submission that the tenanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document