IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1633 OF 2009 Shri Anand Gangadhar Joshi ...Petitioner V/s. Smt.Khairunnissa Sadruddin Bilawala & Ors. ...Respondents ...... None for Petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Wadia Ghandy for Respondent No.1. Mr.B.Unnikrishnan for Respondents 3 & 4. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 24, 2009. MARCH 24, 2009. MARCH 24, 2009. P.C. 1. None appears for the Petitioner when the matter is called out. Dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Later on, Mr.Ganguli for Petitioner mentioned the matter requesting to recall the order dismissing the Petition for default on the ground that when the matter was called out, he was busy in : 2 : some other Court. 3. For the reason mentioned, order dismissing the Petition for non-prosecution is recalled. Petition is restored to file to its original number, to be proceeded on merits forthwith. 4. Heard Counsel for the parties. 5. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Court below in granting application preferred by the Respondent No.1 for permission to inspect the suit premises along with her agent or architect to take measurement and photographs as may be necessary. That relief has been granted not on the basis of equity but statutory right bestowed upon the landlord to inspect the premises in terms of privisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 would argue that the Respondent No.1 has given assurance and undertaking that he would not execute the decree against he Petitioner, except with the leave of the High Court in proceedings being Suit No.1609 of 1990 pending : 3 : before the High Court. The relief claimed by the Respondent No.1 in Application Exhibit 14 is in no way result in execution of the decree as such. Had it been a case of execution of a decree, the argument of the Petitioner and the Respondents 2 and 3 would have deserved consideration. That is not the case on hand. It is rightly submitted on behalf of Respondent No.1 that since the Petitioner has challenged the decree of eviction passed against him in respect of the suit premises by way of appeal and since the said appeal has already been admitted, it is open to the Respondent No.1 being owner and landlord thereof to pray for fixation of interim compensation/mesne profit. That right flows from the exposition of Apex Court in the case of Atmaram Properties vs. Federal Atmaram Properties vs. Federal Atmaram Properties vs. Federal Motors reported in 2005 (3) Bom.C.R.274. Motors reported in 2005 (3) Bom.C.R.274. Motors reported in 2005 (3) Bom.C.R.274. Once again, enforcement of that right cannot be termed as execution of the decree as such but is only an interim arrangement to be observed by the tenant to avail of the protection given by the Court during the pendency of appeal against decree of eviction. Thus understood, there is no substance in this Petition. Dismissed. : 4 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.