CAC. 436-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 436 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 565 OF 2010 Shivanan Narayan Shetty ... Applicant Vs. Sadanand Bhikaji Ghate ... Respondent *** Mr. Sudarshan Shingharni, for the Applicant. Mr. R. S. Apte, Sr. Counsel i/b. H. M. Pandya, for the Respondent. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 PC: 1. This application is filed for review of the order dated 29th June, 2011, passed by this Court. It is submitted that on the said date, the respondent’s counsel could not remain present and the reasons why he could not remain present have been mentioned in paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of his Civil Application. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the amount of compensation which is directed to be paid by the applicant is excessive. He has submitted that the appellate court while granting stay to the order of eviction passed by the trial court, had directed that an amount of Rs.1,700/- approximately should be paid by the applicant during pendency of the appeal. It is submitted CAC. 436-11 - 2 - that the said premises are situated in the slum area; it has a very narrow access. It is also submitted that the income of the applicant is about Rs. 4,000/- per month. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein, however, has submitted that the applicant has not relied on any other documentary evidence in support of his submission. It is submitted that, on the other hand, he has annexed valuer’s report, who has in terms taken into consideration the market value and all other aspects in respect of valuation of the said premises and have his opinion that rental value of the said property would come to around Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is, therefore, submitted that the said order cannot be modified by this Court. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length for some time and taking into consideration the reasons mentioned in paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of the Civil Application, I have permitted the applicant to make his submissions regarding fixation of the compensation by this Court during pendency of the civil revision application. In my view, perusal of the report indicates that the structure is situated in the slum area and access to the said structure also is through a very narrow lane. Taking this fact into consideration, in my view, it would be appropriate if the applicant is directed to pay compensation @ Rs. 5,000/- per month instead of Rs. 7,500/-. Though it is submitted that the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant earns Rs. 4,000/- per month, he has not produced any CAC. 436-11 - 3 - documentary evidence in support of the said submission. Further, it is not disputed that the structure consists of ground plus first floor and first floor is recently constructed. It, therefore, cannot be said that the applicant is not in a position to deposit the said amount. Taking an overall view of the matter and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 29th June, 2011 is modified and instead of directing the applicant to pay Rs. 7,500/- per month, the said amount is reduced and the applicant is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is clarified that respondent shall not be permitted to withdraw the said amount. The respondent, however, may file a separate application. Hearing of the Civil Revision Application is expedited. The amount deposited by the applicant shall be invested by the Registrar, Small Causes Court, Bombay in a nationalized bank, initially for a period of one year and thereafter it may be renewed for the same period, without reference to the court, till disposal of the Civil Revision Application or till any orders are passed by this Court. [ V. M. KANAD, J.]