: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8592 OF 2005 Taherali Fazal Ali .. ..Petitioner Versus Late Hidayatulla Yusufkhan Patel deceased through his heirs & Lrs Attiyabano w/o Hidayatulla Patel & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.K.Y.Mandlik for petitioner Mr.Nitin Jamdar for respnodent CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J. DATE : 24TH APRIL, 2006 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Addl. District Judge dated 19.10.2005, below Exh.5, in Civil Revision Application No.25 of 2005 which was for fixation of the interim standard rent of the suit premises. : 2 : 3. The Revisional Court appears to have taken a view that out of two shop premises which are in dispute, the petitioner is evidently tenant only in one shop and therefore, proceeded to fix the standard rent at the rate of Rs.400/= per month. However, it is submitted that the real grievance is in respect of the observation made by the revisional court while disposing of the application to the effect that the applicant cannot claim for fixation of interim standard rent in respect of both the shop premises described in para 1A and 1B of the application and at the most he could claim the interim standard rent in respect of the shop premises described in para 1B of the application. 4. In this regard after hearing both the parties, I am of the view that while adjudicating the application Exh.6 in Civil Revision NO.25 of 2005 it was not necessary for the lower appellate court to make such observation especially when the revision application is pending final adjudication on merits. Be as it may, the position can be repaired by the fact that this observation would not come in the way of the petitioner while adjudicating the revision application, which is pending disposal finally. : 3 : 5. In the meantime, it is open for the petitioner to deposit the standard rent at the same rate i.e. Rs.400/= per month in the trial court in respect of another shop described in para 1A of the application, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties, especially the present respondent. It is further directed that the lower appellate court shall expeditiously dispose of the Civil Revision No.25 of 2005 so as to complete the hearing within four months from the date of this order. The deposit to be made by the petitioner in the lower court regularly and at the same rate as noted earlier. With this direction the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. 4. The arrears if any also to be deposited within four weeks from the date of this order. 5. On request of the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clarified that all contentions are kept open.