1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.919 of 2008 Malegaon Mahanagarpalika Shopping Centre Association Petitioner Vs. Malegaon Municipal Corporation Respondent Mr.N.P.Shimpi for petitioner. Mr.C.J.Sawant, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Nitin Dhumal for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 16, 2008 P.C. . The Association is aggrieved by the order dated 28/1/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-I at Malegaon. Civil Appeal No.23 of 2006 is pending before the said Court and in the said appeal Applications at Exhibits 24 and 42 came to be filed. Application at Exhibit 24 was filed by the Association seeking directions from the lower Appellate Court to the Corporation to accept the rental amount at the agreed rates in respect of the respective shops which its members are in possession on rental basis. Whereas the application at Exhibit 42 was filed by the Corporation praying to frame the 2 issue of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the appeal and both these applications have been allowed. . However, while allowing the application at Exhibit 24 filed by the Association, the lower Appellate Court has directed to deposit the revised rent from 1/6/2006to 31/3/2007 and not the agreed rent as per the lease agreement. Mr.Shimpi, the learned counsel for the Association submitted that the appeal is pending and it would be appropriate that the Association members deposit the pre-revised rent or the agreed rent. He has pointed out that the revised rate is in multifolds and unbearably high, for example for a gala admeasuring 8 ft. x 11 ft. the monthly rent from Rs.196/- has been revised to Rs.818/-. Similarly the monthly rental amount from Rs.508/- has been revised to Rs.1160/- and so on and so forth. He, therefore, submitted that in the pending appeal till the final issues are decided, it would be appropriate that the rental charges at the pre-revised rates are accepted by the Corporation. . These submissions appear to be impressive but on close scrutiny it is clear that the lower Appellate Court did not commit any error in directing 3 the rental amount to be paid at the revised rates for the period from 1/6/2006 to 31/3/2007. The Corporation filed an application at Exhibit 42 and has taken a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the appeal and this application has been allowed by framing a specific issue regarding jurisdiction. The possibilities are both viz. the Court may entertain the appeal or may not entertain the appeal on the point of jurisdiction and, therefore, the Court did not deem it appropriate to disturb the decision of the Corporation to revise the rates when the very issue of maintainability of the appeal is under consideration. In any case, even if the appeal succeeds, the higher rental charges could be adjusted against the future rental payments and, therefore, no fault could be found with the interlocutory order passed by the lower Appellate Court and impugned in this petition. . Hence the petition is rejected summarily. The ad-interim order stands vacated. At the same time the lower Appellate Court is directed to hear and decide the appeal on its own merits as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31st August 2008 subject to the Association members depositing the 4 directed amount within a period of four weeks from today. (B.H.MARL