Shreedutt Tiwari (Huf) Through Its Karta Shreedutt Tiwari And ANR. v. Bell And Company Pvt. Ltd. And ANR.

WP4649_16.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2016 Shreedutt Tiwari (HUF) through its Karta Shreedutt Tiwari and another ...

Petitioners Vs.

Bell and Company Pvt. Ltd. and another ...

Respondents Mr. Hasmit Trivedi i/b. Mr. Mayuresh Borkar for Petitioners. Mr. Harendra Madhukar Saraf, Managing Director of Respondent No.1 present in person.

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

DATE :

AUGUST 10, 2016 P.C. :

Heard Mr. Trivedi, learned Counsel for petitioners and Mr. Harendra Saraf, Managing Director of Respondent No.1, who appears in person.

2.

By the impugned order, the appellate Court has set aside the trial Court's order dated 18.03.2015. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application made by the respondent seeking directions to the obstructionist to pay mesne profits @ Rs.250/- per square feet per month from September 2008 till handing over possession of the suit premises. Mr. Trivedi submits that as the appellate Court has remitted the matter to the trial Court, all the contentions of the petitioners on merits including respondents-decree holders who filed substantive proceedings for determination of mesne profits may be kept open. 3.

Mr. Trivedi states that Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, petitioner No.2 as also Constituted Attorney of petitioner No.1 is present in the Court. Petitioner No.2 has handed over keys of the suit premises to Mr. Harendra Saraf. He has also tendered letter of possession dated 1/2

WP4649_16.sxw 10.08.2016 signed on behalf of the respondent No.1. The same is taken on record and marked 'Y' for identification. Mr. Saraf confirms receipt of the keys handed over by the petitioners.

4.

As the petitioners have handed over keys of the suit premises to the respondent No.1 and by the impugned order, the matter is remitted to the trial Court for determining mesne profits from September 2008 till today, being the date of handing over possession, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. The trial Court will decide the application uninfluenced by the observations made herein. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab 2/2