Usha Mangla & Ors v. Rohit Mangla

1. After brief submissions, Mr. Ravi Gupta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners/appellants and Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, the learned counsel for the respondent have agreed that so far as the appointment of receiver is concerned, the impugned order may be modified as under

(i) The respondent, Rohit Mangla, shall be deemed to be appointed as a receiver for the property situated in Connaught Place bearing Flat No.913, 9^ Floor, Arunachal Building, 19 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, who shall let out the same after obtaining possession from the appellants in a fair and 2013:DHC:7391 transparent manner by giving advertisement in national daily and the entire rentals including security deposit, if any received initially, after deducting the expenses incurred by him including property tax, at the first instance, shall be deposited withthe learned trial court. The respondent,Rohit Mangla,shall also realise the rent in terms of the agreement from the prospective tenant and deposit the sapie with the trial court on or before 10^ day ofeach English calendar month. The trial court shall keep the said amount in a fixed or recurring^ deposit for such duration as it may considerfitso thatthe amountdeposited,earns maximum interestforthe benefitofallthe parties. Mr. Rohit Mangla shall also file an annual statement in the court concerned regarding total amount ofrentals received by him as well as the details ofthe expenses,ifanyincurred by him in maintainingthe prope^.

(ii) So far as the property bearing No.16/5, Doctors lane, Gole Market,

New Delhi is concerned, which is stated to be in possession of the appellants,would continueto be in their possession and the appellants shall depositasum of lacper month with thetrial courton orbefore 10^day ofeach English calendar month with effect from 1.9.2013. This amountof ^1 lac per month has been fixed on the assumption that the entire building -<J ean be let outfor a sum off[5] lacs per month and the respondent at best has l/S''*share inthe said property. In case the respondentis notable to show to the court that he has any right,title and interest in the aforesaid property to the tune of 1/5^ share in the said property,then the aforesaid amount shall be returned or refunded to the appellants. In any case,both these amountsso deposited by the respective parties shall be subject to such orders at the time offinal disposal ofthe matter as the trial court may deem fit. The trial court, without being influenced, in any manner,bythe observations madeherein shallpasssuch orderas it may deem fit and proper.

(iii) Ithas been stated by the learned senior counselforthe appellantsthat so far as the previous tenant M/s. U.E. Trading Corporation is concerned, they have already filed a suit for recoveiy of certain arrears of rent and mesne profits which is still pending. The appellant No.2, Dr. Bhupesh Mangla,willcontinueto pursuethe said matterand will notcompromisethe same without the permission of the trial court. Any amount realised pursuantto the said decree,shall be deposited with the trial court and shall also be subjectto such orders as the court may deem fit atthe time offinal disposal. i

(iv) So far as otherfour properties are concerned,the order passed by this court on 22.1.2013 shall stand.

2. Accordingly, in the light ofthe directions passed by this court, the impugned order stands partially modified to the extent as detailed hereinabove.

3. In terms of the aforesaid order, the petition being C.M. (M) No.926/2012 and the appeal being F.A.O. No.347/2010 stand disposed of. Trial court record be sent back. V.K.SHALI,J. SEPTEMBER 04,2013 'AA' Vv