JUDGMENT - H. SURESH, J.:---This is a notice of motion in a suit for a declaration that the property in suit is owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants as tenants in common and that this property be divided by metes and bounds on partition. In this suit the plaintiffs have taken out this motion for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the suit property which is described in Ex. A to the plaint. 2. Since there is no controversy that the property comprised in Ex. A is jointly owned both the parties, I need not deal with, in detail, the contentions of the parties at this stage. The defendants, particularly defendant No. 5, submits that he has been exclusively managing the property and the plaintiffs allege that he has been mis-managing the same. 3. The controversy, in particular, relates to one of the properties namely godowns Nos. 4 and 5. It appears that these godowns were vacant since 1980. However, a suit had been filed in this Court being Suit No. 1795 of 1984 by one Soonawalla as against defendant No. 5 and others, but not including the plaintiffs in respect of these godowns. Court Receiver has been appointed in that suit in respect of the said godowns. However the record shows that on December 16, 1986 that suit resulted in consent terms and Court Receiver was discharged. The plaintiffs stated that they were aware of this till about February 1987. 4. The plaintiffs filed this suit on February 4, 1987 and moved this Court for ad-interim reliefs on February 6, 1987. On February 6, 1987 no order was passed inasmuch as the Counsel appearing for defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 stated that the defendants would not create any third party rights and would not induct any third party in the suit property. According to the plaintiffs on February 6, 1987 the first plaintiff visited the said godowns and he took photographs and the said photographs show that the said godowns were vacant. Thereafter the plaintiffs were served with an affidavit of defendant No. 5 on February 10, 1987. In that affidavit defendant No. 5 stated that he had let out these godowns to various persons and amongst them the names of the present respondents were shown. But Mr. Thereafter the plaintiffs were served with an affidavit of defendant No. 5 on February 10, 1987. In that affidavit defendant No. 5 stated that he had let out these godowns to various persons and amongst them the names of the present respondents were shown. But Mr. Bharucha points out that apart from these names of the respondents, the defendants had not given any particulars in respect of these respondents. Mr. Bharucha further submits that in spite of seeking clarifications and particulars the defendant's Advocate did not furnish any such particulars as to the tenancy granted in favour of these respondents. He points out that their address were also not given to the plaintiffs' Advocate. On the same day i.e. on February 10, 1987 an application was made for ad interim relief and this Court was pleased to pass an order that the defendants should give particulars of the creation of tenancy to the plaintiffs Advocate and that the defendants should not induct any third party as from that date. The plaintiffs were also given liberty to inspect the property. The plaintiffs submit that there was some obstruction in the inspection of the godowns and therefore they had to take photographs after opening the windows on the rear side. Accordingly, they took photographs and again moved the Court on February 11, 1987. The photographs then showed that some construction work was going on while no such work was in progress on the date of the filing of the suit. The photographs also showed that there no galas as on that date. The defendants were injuncted not to carry out any construction or alterations in the suit godowns. 5. The records placed before me show that on February 11, 1987, defendant No. 5 wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 informing him that the plaintiffs have filed this suit in this Court and the Court passed an order that no construction should be carried out and the photographs had been taken on record. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in spite of this information being given to the respondents, the respondents continued to carry on construction work and there- fore as a result of that the plaintiffs had to move the Court once again on February 17, 1987 and the plaintiffs also took out a contempt motion on that day. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in spite of this information being given to the respondents, the respondents continued to carry on construction work and there- fore as a result of that the plaintiffs had to move the Court once again on February 17, 1987 and the plaintiffs also took out a contempt motion on that day. On February 18, 1987 an order was passed recording the undertaking given by the defendants that they will give inspection of the suit premises to the plaintiffs on February 19, 1987 at 11 a.m. On February 19, 1987 inspection was given but the plaintiffs were prevented from taking photographs of the suit premises. It is on that day that the plaintiffs saw certain sign-boards for the first time in the said galas. On February 22, 1987 the plaintiffs against visited the said galas and they found that construction activities were going on and also certain cabins/galas were being constructed. The plaintiffs also took further photographs of what was going on and thereafter they moved the Court once again on February 23, 1987. On February 23, 1987, having regard to all that transpired, this Court appointed the Court receiver and he was directed to take possession of the premises forthwith and was further directed to stop construction activities in the premises. The Court Receiver was further directed to remove the persons whomsoever found in the premises of necessary with the help of the police. The photographs tendered by the plaintiffs were also taken on record. 6. There is a report of the Court Receiver when he visited the premises on February 23, 1987. That record shows that in the premises he met Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate for the present respondents who stated that the respondents were occupying the said premises which appeared to be divided into five parts by cement block (bricks) and plastering and other construction work for such division was going on. He also noticed that building material such as cement bags, sand, steel bars etc. were lying in the premises. 7. Thereafter the present respondents moved the Court on March 3, 1987 for vacating the order when they took out their Notice of Motion No. 551 of 1987. After hearing the Advocates on either side no relief was given to the respondents (applicants). were lying in the premises. 7. Thereafter the present respondents moved the Court on March 3, 1987 for vacating the order when they took out their Notice of Motion No. 551 of 1987. After hearing the Advocates on either side no relief was given to the respondents (applicants). It appears that against the said order the present respondents (applicants) moved the Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal wherein by a consent order dated March 11, 1987, the respondents were allowed to be put in possession but they were directed not to carry out any construction work in the suit premises and to maintain the property in the same condition in which it was handed over to the Court Receiver by the applicants. That order was to be in force till the disposal of the present notice of motion, as also the Contempt Motion No. 433 of 1987. 8. The respondents contend that genuine tenancy had been granted to them in the month of December 1986 by defendant No. 5 who was managing the property. In support of their contention they rely on an affidavit made by defendant No. 5 which is declared on December 16, 1986. They also rely on a rent receipt dated December 18, 1986 given by defendant No. 5. They also rely on a rent receipt dated December 18, 1986 by defendant No. 5. They also rely on letter dated December 18, 1986 from defendant No. 5 and addressed to respondent No. 1. Mr. Parikh in particular submitted that the affidavit appears to be a genuine affidavit and if it ha been declared on December 16, 1986 the same should be accepted as a piece of evidence indicating that tenancy had been granted in favour of the respondents by defendant No. 5 and that, therefore, no receiver can be appointed in respect of the same godowns. In my view this affidavit by itself is not sufficient to hold in favour of the respondents. Prima facie, I, am, satisfied that no tenancy could have been created till the filing of this suit inasmuch as the documents relied upon, suffer from several infirmities. In support of this affidavit, defendant No. 5 had made a statement that he had received a sum of Rs. 1,875/- by a cheque but no evidence has come forth to show that the cheque payment had in fact been made. In support of this affidavit, defendant No. 5 had made a statement that he had received a sum of Rs. 1,875/- by a cheque but no evidence has come forth to show that the cheque payment had in fact been made. The letters given by defendant No. 5 alleged to be of the date of December 18, 1986, so also the rent receipt, cannot be accepted as evidence inasmuch as these are the documents which can be prepared at any time for the purpose of this case even after the filing of the case. 9. Mr. Parikh relied on a letter dated January 2, 1987 addressed by respondent No. 1 to the Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation and he submitted that this letter had been received by the Municipal Corporation on January 2, 1987. He further submitted that there is a reply to this letter which is dated February 21, 1987 from the Assistant Engineer and which again refers to the application dated January 2, 1987, obviously meaning thereby that the application had been, in fact, made by respondent No. 1. On a careful scrutiny of these two letters I am inclined to think that these two documents cannot help the respondents. There are a number of infirmities in these documents. The letter dated January 2, 1987 speaks of construction of a loft and an office cabin in shed No. 1 and the permission is sought to start the construction. Of course, this letter shows that he had also enclosed a plan of the loft (proposed) and also other documents such as landlord's No Objection Certificate, rent receipt etc. The reply dated February 21, 1987 is queer. Firstly, it does not speak of construction of a cabin and a loft. On the other hand it speaks of repair permission to replaster the existing internal and external brick masonry walls. It speaks of repairs to the existing roof and to change the existing Mangalore tiled roof to Asbestos cement sheet roof without changing the slope of the roof. And it also speaks of construction of wooden lofts as shown in the plan. The letter dated January 2, 1987 speaks of construction of one cabin and one loft. Mr. Parikh also relied on the plan. Obviously, this plan must have been prepared subsequently. This had no connection with the letter dated January 2, 1987. And it also speaks of construction of wooden lofts as shown in the plan. The letter dated January 2, 1987 speaks of construction of one cabin and one loft. Mr. Parikh also relied on the plan. Obviously, this plan must have been prepared subsequently. This had no connection with the letter dated January 2, 1987. Prima facie all these things must have been manoeuvred to place some evidence. If in fact a genuine tenancy had been created, there would have been better evidence. 10. Mr. Parikh submitted that in any event these things show that tenancy had been granted to the respondents prior to the filing of this suit and he, therefore, submitted that at least the respondents can be continued as agents of the Court Receiver. I would have considered this aspect of the matter if respondents had come to the Court with an honest case. On the other hand I find that they were ware of the fact that defendant had been restrained from putting up any construction. Defendant No. 5 by a letter date February 11, 1987 expressly informed respondent No. 1 that this Court had already passed an order that no construction should be carried out and photographs in fact had been taken on record. In spite of this, without coming to the Court, on their own the respondents proceeded to put up construction worked inside the godowns. Even the permission of the Municipal Corporation dated February 21, 1987 says that respondent No. 1 should intimate to their office, the date of the commencement and completion of repair work. No such evidence has been produced before this Court. Therefore, it is clear that it was nothing but a make-belief as far as this permission was concerned. The respondents were taking a chance and were proceeding in a great hurry to construct the galas and to come to Court with fait accompli. This conduct should disentitle them any equitable considerations from this court. Prima facie, defendant No. 5 and the respondents were in collusion with one another. In any event, there is no evidence of the respondents being in possession of the godowns on the date of filing of this suit. This conduct should disentitle them any equitable considerations from this court. Prima facie, defendant No. 5 and the respondents were in collusion with one another. In any event, there is no evidence of the respondents being in possession of the godowns on the date of filing of this suit. There was only a scramble to get into possession some how, after knowing full well, that the plaintiffs are opposed to defendant No. 5 dealing with the property, and the matter is under consideration by this Court. Hence, the Order as under : The order passed by me on February 23, 1987 appointing Court Receiver in respect of the properties in suit, stands confirmed. In further direct that the respondents who were put in possession of the premises by virtue of the interim order passed by the Appeal Court, be removed from the godown premises by the Court Receiver. As regards defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are concerned they are in occupation of a part of the godown premises, wherein they are carrying on business of Bharati Exports. The Court Receiver will permit defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to continue to be in that portion on payment of compensation of Rs. 400/- per month to the Court Receiver. However, there would be other usual terms and conditions as are generally prescribed by the Court Receiver, excepting that the Court Receiver should not insist on security from defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7. But defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 would be liable to pay taxes, if any, to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The Court Receiver is directed to hand over the machinery and other articles belonging to defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 back to defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7. At this stage Mr. Parikh makes an application that the operation of this order in so far as it applies to the respondents be stayed for four weeks from today. The application is granted subject to the condition mentioned in the order dated March 11, 1987. The Court Receiver to act on the minutes. The costs of the motion to be the costs in the cause. Order accordingly. -----