1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.719 OF 2010 Vishnu Tukaram Habib .. Petitioner versus Amogsiddha Oziappa Patil .. Respondent ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.721 OF 2010 Vishnu Tukaram Habib .. Petitioner versus Shivaji Apparao Satpute .. Respondent ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2010 Vishnu Tukaram Habib .. Petitioner versus Atmaram Dattatray Khare (since deceased) through legal representatives Sharad Atmaram Khare & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.723 OF 2010 Vishnu Tukaram Habib .. Petitioner versus Rajaram G. Kshirsagar (since deceased) through legal representatives Ramesh Rajaram Kshirsagar & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.724 OF 2010 Vishnu Tukaram Habib .. Petitioner versus Parmeshwar Laxman Khajindar (since deceased) through legal representatives Laxman Parmeshwar Khajindar & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.725 OF 2010 Vishnu Tukaram Habib .. Petitioner versus Narsing Laxman Rajput .. Respondent Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the petitioner. 2 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4th February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. These petitions are filed by the original plaintiff-land lord. The decree for possession has been passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents in these petitions under section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. In the appeals preferred by the respondents in these petitions, applications for stay were made by the respondents. The ad-interim relief of stay was granted on the said applications. Thereafter, the petitioner filed reply to the said applications on 7th March 2009. The Appellate Court stayed the execution of the decree for possession subject to the respondents furnishing a security in the amount of Rs.45,000/-. 2. Thereafter on 15th April 2009, the petitioner made applications in the said appeals seeking a direction that as a condition for grant of stay, the respondents be directed to deposit compensation amount calculated as per the market value till the disposal of the appeal. By the impugned order, the said applications have been rejected. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, while passing order of stay in exercise of powers under Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 a condition ought to have been imposed of payment of compensation as per the market value. He submitted that therefore the applications on which impugned orders have been passed were made and the Appellate Court has erroneously rejected the said applications without imposing a condition of deposit of even a reasonable compensation per month. 4. I have considered the submissions. The petitioner filed a reply to applications for stay filed by the respondents. The prayer for grant of stay was opposed by the petitioner. In the reply, without prejudice to contention that stay should not be granted, the petitioner prayed that the 3 respondents be directed to furnish security of Rs.50,000/- for due performance of the decree and the respondents be directed to deposit entire arrears of rent and to go on depositing the rent till the disposal of the appeal. At that stage, the petitioner did not produce valuation report and did not pray that imposing a condition of deposit of compensation. Applications on which impugned orders have been passed were made after final order was passed on the applications for stay. 5. Therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. It is pointed out that decrees have been passed under section 13(1)(hh) of the said Act of 1947. Therefore, hearing of the appeals deserve to be expedited. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) Writ petitions are rejected. (b) If the paper books are not read, it will be open for the petitioner to file private paper-books. (c) Hearing of the appeals is expedited and the Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeals as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 30th April 2010. (d) All contentions on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)