WP. 4064-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 4064 OF 2010 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ...Petitioners Vs. M/s. Manish Investments ...Respondents *** Mr. Saeed Akhtar, for the Petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Nurula i/b M/s. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for Respondents. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : APRIL 11, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents. Petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The respondents are the original plaintiffs who had filed a suit for recovery of possession of the premises which were given to the petitioner herein on lease. After the termination of the lease, said suit was filed. The petitioners on their own handed over the premises on 23rd April, 2003. The trial Court directed that the inquiry be held for determination of WP. 4064-10 - 2 - mesne profits. The trial Court, after the inquiry, was held, directed the petitioners to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 60/- per sq. ft. per month with interest @ 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Division Bench heard the appeal and the application which was filed for stay of the order and decree of the trial Court and directed the petitioner to give security towards the payment of amount due which was directed by the trial Court. The trial Court also directed that the security may be furnished in the form of bank guarantee. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 2. It is submitted that by an impugned judgment & order, the lower Appellate Court has directed the petitioner to furnish security for the entire amount. It is submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merits and the highest amount that would be payable to the respondent would come to Rs. 10 lakhs. Additional amount of Rs. 20 lakhs over and above Rs. 10 lakhs is already deposited. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been asked to furnish security by giving bank guarantee and the MTNL being a Government Company could very well furnish the said security. In my view, it would be appropriate if the WP. 4064-10 - 3 - petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.30 lakhs in the lower Appellate Court and furnish security for rest of the amount to the satisfaction of the lower Appellate Court with a further direction that the Appeal should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible in any case within a period of one year. The impugned order is, therefore, accordingly, modified and writ petition is disposed of. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that a further direction may be given permitting the respondent to withdraw the said amount. In my view, such a direction cannot be given in a petition which is filed by the petitioner herein. The respondent is always at liberty to file an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the lower Appellate Court shall consider the same on merits. All contentions raised by both the parties are kept open. Time to deposit additional amount of Rs.20 lakh and furnish security, is further extended by a period of 8 weeks. [ V. M. KANADE J.]