1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2775/2010 ( Jitendra J. Bhatt & another -: VERSUS :- Late Shri Dayaldas C. Agrawal & others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.G. Joshi, Adv. for petitioner. Shri C.A. Joshi, Adv. for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 22, 2010. Heard Adv. Shri S.G. Joshi for petitioner and Adv. Shri C.A. Joshi for respondent. Adv. Shri Joshi points out that other respondents are sisters of petitioner no.1. The matter is heard finally with consent of parties. The facts show that petitioner has secured a decree of eviction in R.C.S. No.378/1993 and by judgment dated 13th of July 1999 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Akola ordered him to pay arrears of rent, municipal taxes etc. At that time, the petitioner was also directed to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.200/- per month for the period from 1/6/1993 to 30/6/1993. This was challenged by petitioners in appeal and sisters were added as respondents. As respondents (sisters) were not served, the appeal came to be dismissed and then proceedings for its restoration with prayer for condonation of delay was filed. The Appellate 2 Court has condoned that delay and M.J.C. has been restored. The petitioners wanted stay of possession during the pendency of M.J.C. and that has not been granted. Adv. Shri Joshi contends that if M.J.C. is allowed appeal will be restored and according to him there are strong chances of succeeding in appeal. The learned counsel further states that possession needs to be protected as otherwise the appeal becomes infructuous. Adv. Shri C.A. Joshi points out that the proceedings for eviction are going on since 1993 and by using the sister the petitioners have succeeded indefinitely delaying the eviction. He, therefore, fairly states that this Court should restore the appeal and make it time bound. According to him rent being paid in 1993 was Rs.100/- per month and the premises can easily fetch rent at Rs.1,000/- per month at this stage. He, therefore, contends that for entire period the petitioner no.1 should be asked to pay rent at Rs.1,000/- per month and if this amount is paid the appeal should be restored. Adv. Shri S.G. Joshi states that the Trial Court has for a period of one month granted rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month only. Hence he contends that the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month is exorbitant. It is apparent that the present rate of rent cannot be granted at this stage hence the petitioner no.1 is directed to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 1/7/1993 till 31/7/2010 without prejudice to his contentions raised before the Trial Court. Said amount is to be deposited by 30th of September 2010. If the amount is so deposited, the prayer made by petitioner in M.J.C. Shall be allowed and appeal dismissed in default stand restored. In case said 3 amount is deposited, during the pendency of appeal there will be an interim order protecting the possession of petitioner no.1 subject to his continuing to deposit the amount of Rs.500/- during the pendency of appeal. In case the amount deposited, as mentioned above, the Appellate Court shall attempt to decide the appeal as early as possible and in any case by 31st of January 2011. The petitioner no.1 shall file private paper book by 30th of September 2010 before the Appellate Court. If the order is not complied with, the impugned order passed by lower Appellate Court shall review and operate. Writ petition is thus partly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.