1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.653 OF 2009 M/s. Mansukhlal Harilal & Co. ...Applicant. v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ...Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.654 OF 2009 M/s. Hirji Nagji & Co. & Anr. ..Applicants. v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ...Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2009 M/s.Maru & Trading Company ..Applicant v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ..Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.656 OF 2009 M/s.Premji Ghellabhai & Co. ...Applicant. v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ...Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.657 OF 2009 M/s.S.K.Rajgor & Co. ...Applicant. v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of 2 Bombay ...Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.658 OF 2009 M/s. Khimji Anand & Co. ...Applicant. v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ...Respondents. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/by Smt. Mugdha M. Jadhav, advs. For the Applicant. Mr.U.J.Makheja i/by M/s.Motiwalla and Co., adv. For the Respondent. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 27th August , 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 To state in brief, the respondents had taken certain premises known as ‘Bays’ for the purpose of use as godown on 4.7.1978 for a period of three months on licence. The licence fee was Rs.1.25 per square metre per pay. The licensing period expired on 4.10.1978 but they failed to vacate the said bays and hand over the possession back to the Port Trust. They filed certain suits in the City Civil Court seeking injunction against the Port Trust against taking back possession. Those suits were disposed off as a result of ‘Consent Terms’ filed by the parties, whereby respondent/Port Trust had undertaken that they would 3 not evict the present applicants without following the due process of law. Thereafter, the respondent/Port Trust filed suits 134/162/1985, 135/163/1985, 136/164/1985, 137/165/1985, 205/235/1985, 207/237/1985 and 208/238/1985 for eviction, possession and mesne profits in the year 1985. Suits were decreed by the judgment dated 5th February, 2001. Meanwhile pending the suits in 1996, defendants/applicants vacated the said bays. The trial Court directed to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2.50 psm., per day from the date of expiration of the licence till the date of recovery of the possession. Being not satisfied with the rate of mesne profits, Port Trust preferred appeal nos.638/2001, 639/2001, 640/2001, 641/2001, 642/2001, 643/2001 and 644/2001. The appellate Bench allowed the appeals and directed the defendants to pay compensation/mesne profits at the rate of Rs.4.50 psm per day. Said order is challenged in the present revision applications by the original defendants. 3 The learned counsel for the applicants contended that suits were barred by the limitation. Secondly, he contended that there was no justification to enhance the rate of mesne profits. The learned counsel for the respondent/Port Trust pointed out from the judgment of the trial Court that the advocate for the defendants has conceded that suits were 4 within limitation, therefore, that question cannot be raised now. The learned counsel for the port trust also pointed out that as per bye-laws of the Port Trust dated 4th April, 1977, which were applicable to the relevant period, Port Trust was to charge Rs.4.50/- psm per day and on the basis of that, appellate Court had fixed the mesne profits. In view of these facts and circumstances, I find no substance in the present revision applications. 4 Revision Applications, therefore, stand dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)