IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2570 OF 2009 Jignesh Shah & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Smt.Prabhadevi Ganesh Ghatpande & Ors..Respondents ...... Ms.Uma Wagale for Petitioners. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 31, 2009. MARCH 31, 2009. MARCH 31, 2009. P.C. 1. Essentially two points have been raised before me. The first argument is that when the Appeal was admitted, unconditional stay was granted. For that reason, it was not open to the Appellate Court to entertain the Application filed by the landlord for fixation of interim monthly compensation/mesne profit later on. This argument will have to be stated to be rejected. Recently, similar contention was raised in the case of Super Super Super Max International Pvt.Ltd. vs. M/s.R.M.Choksey & Max International Pvt.Ltd. vs. M/s.R.M.Choksey & Max International Pvt.Ltd. vs. M/s.R.M.Choksey & : 2 : Co. decided on 3rd March 2009, Co. decided on 3rd March 2009, Co. decided on 3rd March 2009, which has been rejected. The fact that while admitting the Appeal, unconditional stay was granted to the tenant, does not preclude the landlord from filing Application for determination of interim monthly compensation/mesne profit at a later stage. Such Application though filed subsequently has to proceed on its own merits, keeping in mind the parameters expounded by the Apex Court in Atmaram Atmaram Atmaram Properties vs. Federal Motors reported in 2005 (3) Properties vs. Federal Motors reported in 2005 (3) Properties vs. Federal Motors reported in 2005 (3) Bom.C.R. 274. Bom.C.R. 274. Bom.C.R. 274. 2. The second point raised is that the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month to be paid as interim compensation is excessive. It is not possible to accept this grievance. For, it is not in dispute that the premises are admeasuring about 340 sq.ft. and are situated in a business locality on the main road. The premises were let out for commercial purpose. If it is so, amount of Rs.5,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. As a matter of fact, the lower Court has considered this aspect and has confined the amount to Rs.5,000/- inspite of the demand of the Respondent/landlord to : 3 : fix the monthly compensation of Rs.10,000/- in view of the prevailing fair market rent for similar premises in the same locality. No interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.