Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5528 OF 2014

[Arising out of SLP(C) No.30298 of 2010]

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.

(Formerly known as Shree Ram Mills Ltd.)

….. Appellant

:Versus:

The Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay

…… Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and

order dated 16^th September, 2010 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.452 of 2009,

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

dismissing the Civil Revision Application filed by the appellant-

tenant. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal

are thus: An immovable property known as “Dev Ashish” is a

tenanted property situated at Padam Tekri, Peddar Road, Bombay

(hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). The respondent

herein was appointed by the Bombay High Court to take charge of

the suit property in Suit No.234 of 1987, which was filed on the

original side of the Bombay High Court, in terms of prayer clause

(a) of the Notice of Motion which reads as follows:

“(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of

above suit, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or

some other fit and proper person be appointed as a

Receiver of an immovable property known as “Dev

Ashish” situate on Sub-Plot No.1 of Plot No.C.S.S.755 at

Padam Tekdi, Pedder Road, Bombay 400 026, with all

powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, including the owner to recover,

receive and collect the rent, income and profits

thereof.”

3.

The respondent, being the Court Receiver in the aforesaid

suit, issued Notice dated July 26, 2001 to the appellant herein to

pay compensation at the rate of RS.1,75,000/- per month from

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

1.4.2000 and to vacate the suit premises. The appellant replied to

the said notice of the respondent stating that the respondent has

been appointed to control the suit premises and has no right and

power to determine the tenancy of the appellant. Meanwhile, the

appellant was declared as a sick company under the Sick

Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the SICA’).

4.

The respondent instituted a suit against the appellant-

defendant before the Court of Small Causes, Bombay which was

decreed in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said

decree, the appellant-defendant filed an appeal before the

Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, being Appeal No.837

of 2003. This appeal was dismissed by judgment and order dated

June 12, 2009. The appellant-defendant, therefore, filed a revision

petition before the High Court of Bombay under Section 115 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, being Civil Revision Application

No.452 of 2009. The said civil revision application was dismissed

by the Bombay High Court vide its judgment and order dated

16.9.2010. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated

Page 4

JUDGMENT

4

16.9.2010, this appeal, by special leave, has come up before this

Court.

5.

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant, challenged the order on the grounds, firstly, that

the Court Receiver did not obtain leave of the court in filing the

suit and without such leave, the eviction suit is liable to be

dismissed. Secondly, he contended that the notice was issued on

July 26, 2001 asking the appellant to vacate the suit premises

immediately, therefore, the notice was defective in view of the

provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On this

ground also, he contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Thirdly, he contended that the suit is also bad since the owners

are the trustees and are not made parties to the suit.

6.

In support of his contention with regard to the first point that

the suit