CREDIBLE TRADING AND INVESTMENT LIMITED Vs. NANDLAL BALKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals raise a common question of law and are, therefore, being disposed of by this judgment. The appeals are directed against a judgment dated 1. 11. 1995 of a learned Single Judge of this Court on reports of the Court Receiver dated 3-3-1995, 28-7-1995 and 22-8-1995.

(2.) THE facts relating to Appeal No. 959 of 1995, briefly stated are as follows :-In a suit for dissolution arising out of disputes between the partners of a firm engaged in the business of construction, the Court Receiver was appointed as Receiver by this Court on 10-10-1973. The Court Receiver was appointed as Receiver of a property known as "khanna Construction House" situated at 44, Abdul Ghaffar Khan Road, Worli, Mumbai. The property had been in the occupation of tenants for several years and there were twenty eight tenants. On 11-8-1971, a lease deed had been entered into between the owners of the suit property and a company known by the name of M/s. Ethnor Ltd. ("ethnor") by which an area admeasuring 5810 square feet in the building was given on lease for a period of three years with effect from 20th January, 1971, with an option of renewal. Clause II (9) of the lease deed contained the following provision in regard to sub-letting and assignment :-

(3.) THE dispute in the present case arises out of a report filed by the Court Receiver on 22-8-1995. The Court Receiver in his report dated 22-8-1995 drew the attention of the Court to what was considered to be an illegal sub-letting of the suit premises by several of the lessees who were in occupation of the premises. The Court Receiver, in regard to the 1st appellant stated that the 1st appellant had inducted the 2nd appellant into the suit premises. The report of the Court Receiver, as stated above, deals with a number of other tenants who, according to the Receiver, had either carried out repairs or renovation to the premises "illegally" or had inducted third parties into the premises after the lease deeds were executed in pursuance of the permission granted by this Court. In so far as the appellants are concerned, the Receiver sought a direction from the Court as to whether the appellants should be directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in their occupation on the ground that the 1st appellant had parted with possession of the premises to the 2nd appellant. At this stage, it would also be necessary to state that the Court Receiver had, inter alia, sought a direction in regard to whether one Anthony Leo of Flora Restaurant should also be directed to be removed on the ground that he had unauthorisedly carried out certain construction work and was carrying on the business of a liquor Bar in the Restaurant. The facts relating to the case of Anthony Leo are of significance because against the order passed by the Court in Anthony Leos case, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in appeal to which reference will be presently made.