the property remaining in possession of the opposite party, the Receiver may be appointed. As elaborated earlier, the property in L.B. Road, Adyar worth about several crores and they parted with the possession of the property about two decades ago and inspite of compromise decree entered in 2001, 1st Appellant had neither handed over possession to 1st Respondent nor paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.74,70,000/- to the 3rd Respondent. By retaining the possession of the entire building, 1st Appellant is unjustly enriching himself. In such facts and circumstances, exercising discretion with a view to prevent further irreparable loss, learned Judge has appointed the 1st Respondent as Receiver for the entire property. Considering the circumstances, when the first Court has acted appointing the Receiver, the Appellate Court will not interfere unless the exercise of discretion is shown to be perverse. Taking into account that Respondents who are the original owners of the property have been kept out of possession for more than two decades, in our considered view, learned Judge was justified in appointing the 1st Respondent himself as Receiver for the entire property. Insofar as the portion of property in self occupation of Appellants, the learned Judge has rightly granted liberty to the 1st Respondent to take out necessary application for fixation of fair rent. We however direct the 1st Respondent to deposit the rent collected to the credit of C.S.No.1042 of 2008 along with the report once in three months.
