FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WP/2741/2011 VADIRAJ VS STATE ... Shri Shailesh Brahme, Advocate for petitioner Shri D.R.Korde, AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for respondent No.2 ... 1. The appellate Court granted conditional stay and directed the petitioner/occupant to deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- in the Court within a period of 7 days from 30.3.2011. This Court on 6.4.2011 while issuing notices directed the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by 11.4.4011 and some more amount by returnable date i.e. 25.4.2011. Accordingly, amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner on 11.4.2011 and thereafter, amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited on 20.4.2011. 2. The matter was heard yesterday. Shri Brahme, learned counsel contended that to complete payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as per the order of the appellate Court more amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- is to be deposited and the petitioner can deposit it within a period of two months. Shri Goyanka, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned AGP for respondent No.1 has opposed the said request. According to Shri Goyanka, learned Advocate the total amount outstanding is more than Rs. 39,00,000/- and the current market rent of the suit premises is about Rs.44,000/- per month. He, therefore, opposes any interference by this Court in the matter. 3. The Estate Officer functioning under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 has ordered eviction of the petitioner and has also ordered recovery. That judgment has been questioned in appeal under Section 7 of the said Act before the learned District Judge - I, Jalgaon. In FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS (2) WP/2741/2011 that appeal, while granting interim relief, above mentioned conditional order dated 30.3.2011 came to be passed. Looking to the arrears and the market rent per month, I find the request for grant of time unjustified. I am not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. 4. Writ Petition is dismissed. Amount deposited with the Registry is allowed to be withdrawn by respondent No.3. No order as to costs. Dt.29.4.2011 (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) akl