1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C. A. W. No. 710 of 2009 In WRIT PETITION NO. 3720 OF 2008. J. K. Education Society & Ors. Vs. Rajkumar Sawai Bhagwansingh & Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 6 th MAY, 2009. Heard Shri Joshi and Shri Deshpande learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. These applications have been filed by both the parties. Both parties seek to withdraw the amount said to be deposited by J. K. Education Society who is a tenant/licencee in the premises. Eviction order was passed by the competent authority which was challenged before this Court. However, the petition was not entertained and the parties were relegated to 2 avail a remedy of revision. Revision has been decided and the matter stands remitted back to the competent authority. 3. While petition was pending in this Court the petitioner had made a request of grant of stay for the period of 15 days in order to enable the petitioner to approach the revisional authority. While considering that application it is not in dispute that the petitioner volunteered to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lacs in the Court in three installments, first two installments were deposited and the third one was not deposited and instead of that amount Rs. 1,45,000/- was deposited. Now an amount of Rs. 21,45,000/- is in deposit. Shri Deshpande learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is liable to pay to the respondents a sum equal to double the licence fee by virtue of proviso contained in Section 24(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Other side disputes this proposition. After having gone through the said Section it is apparent that the Section applies only to the 3 residential premises. Shri Deshpande submits that vires of this section has been challenged in the Writ Petition. The Writ petition is still pending. Admittedly therefore as on today the petitioner is not liable to pay double the amount since the premises are admittedly not let out or licenced as a residential premises. Since the amount has already been in deposit in this Court and the question as to validity of the said provision is pending before the Court, it would be desirable not to pay back the amount of either party until further orders. In the circumstances it is directed that this amount be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of 3 years until further orders. The final order as far as repayment of amount is concerned, would be passed as and when this Writ Petition challenging the virus is disposed of. If the petitioner deposits any further amount in the Court as was directed by this Court earlier, the said amount shall also be invested in the nationalised bank along with rest of the amount. 4 svk JUDGE