KRISHNA YESHWANT SHIRODKAR Vs. SUBHASH KRISHNA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay, being S.C. Suit No. 304 of 1987. The suit was filed for an injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit premises which are business premises where the plaintiff was conducting a business described as hotel business. In practise it means a business where drinks and eatables are served to the customers. In that suit he took out a Notice of Motion bearing No. 2630 of 1987 and another Notice of Motion bearing No. 285 of 1987. These notices of motion are dated 27th of April, 1987 and 6th of January, 1987 respectively. Notice of Motion No. 2630 of 1987 was for appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit property.

(2.) Before we proceed to mention the circumstances leading the parties to this Court, it would be necessary to briefly mention the facts which led the appellant, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" to file the suit in the City Civil Court. The plaintiff had come in possession of the suit premises under an Agreement of April 1969 entered into between the plaintiff and one Krishna Patil. On 1st of May, 1969 this agreement was reduced to writing. The plaintiff contained to be in possession of the suit premises till the middle of 1976. In the meantime, on 4th of February, 1976 Krishna Patil, the original person with whom the plaintiff had entered into the agreement, expired. Thereafter on 1st of May, 1976 the plaintiff entered into another agreement, described as the conducting agreement, with Subhash Krishna Patil, who is the son of Krishna Patil. He is defendant No. 4 in the suit.

(3.) It is alleged in the plaint and it seems to be admitted between the parties that the building in which the suit premises are situated were in a dilapidated condition and the tenants formed themselves into an association for repairing the entire building. Of the contribution towards the repairs the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 18,000 - Rs. 12,000 2nd of December, 1985 and Rs. 6,000 on 12th of December, 1985. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit were authorised on behalf of the tenants of the building to carry out the repairs and they have passed receipts acknowledging receipt of the amounts paid by the plaintiff, though the receipts are undoubtedly in the name of defendant No. 4.