1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1388/2010. Satish Mohanlal Jaiswal. -: VERSUS :- Dilip Ramkrushna Deshmukh and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 10, 2010. Heard Shri S.P. Kshirasagar, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri B.B. Halmare, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner has filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, complaining of forcible dispossession. The story is, present respondent no.4 was the tenant who handed over possession to petitioner and thereafter, present respondent nos. 1 to 4 forcibly dispossessed the petitioner. The learned Trial Court as also the learned Appellate Court have rejected prayer for temporary mandatory injunction of restoration of possession during the pendency of the suit. 2 According to Shri Kshirsagar, learned Counsel the original tenant / respondent no.4 has not filed any reply and he further states that respondent no.1 to 3 also never chose to file any reply and in absence of their affidavit on records, the affidavit filed by petitioner ought to have been accepted and the mandatory injunction ought to have been awarded. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel contends that respondent nos. 1 and 2 possess CL-III licence and they have been operating from the site in question since 2006. Prior to 2006 their father was managing the business from the said premises. His contention is, respondent no.4 has not and could not have handed over possession to petitioner as alleged. During hearing, it has transpired that respondent nos. 1 to 3 were proceeded without reply and thereafter they have placed their reply affidavit on record. The written statement filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 is already on record. The monthly rent is stated to be Rs. 6000/- per month. At this stage, Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has stated that there is nothing on record to show that rent was Rs.6000/- per month. He is seeking time to obtain instructions from respondent nos. 1 and 2 about the rent. 3 Perusal of paragraph no.2 of the plaint shows that earlier rent was Rs. 6435/- per month. In this situation, I am not inclined to go into any controversy. Admittedly present respondent nos. 1 and 2 are in possession. In the circumstances, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit with the trial Court amount calculated @ Rs.6000/- per month from 01.02.2009 onwards till date by 30.09.2010. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the Regular Civil Suit No. 412/2009 and the same shall be decided as early as possible and in any case within a period of 6 months after 30.09.2010. The amount deposited by respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioners/plaintiff till the suit is decided. The party succeeding in the suit shall thereafter be entitled to withdraw the same. Deposit of amount shall not prejudice any of the contentions and rights of respondent nos.1 and 2 as also of petitioner in the matter. With this direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.