1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8940 OF 2009 Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran ........ Petitioner versus Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. ........Respondent. Mr. P.M. Pradhan Sr. counsel i/b. A.R. Pitale adv. for the Petitioner Mrs. Ranjana Parikh with Vinayak Shete & Amol Joshi adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 25th November, 2009. P. C.: 1. A decree for possession of suit premises has been passed in favour of the respondent and against the present petitioner by the trial court. The premises in question ad-measures 2200 sq.ft. Situated at Nariman Point which is a prime location. While granting stay of possession in an appeal carried by the present petitioner, the first appellate court has imposed a condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- per month till the disposal of the appeal after taking into consideration the prevailing rent/compensation in the said area. However the Court has permitted the respondent to withdraw only a 2 sum of Rs. 21,500/- per month which was the agreed rent. The condition directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- per month is challenged by filing this petition. The petitioner is in no way put to any prejudice for the obvious reason that out of the sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner every month, what is permitted to be withdrawn is Rs. 21,500/- and rest of the amount is to be invested in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. Petitioner Corporation is questioning the correctness of the said order. No illegality is pointed out in the impugned order much less patent requiring any interference at the hands of this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227. In the result petition fails and is summarily rejected. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)