IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2986 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1122 OF 2008 M/s.Arthur Frank & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Patel India Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Rajiv Patil, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.P.N.Shah for Petitioners. Mr.A.K.Abhyankar, Sr.Counsel i/b M/s.Madekar & Co. for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JULY 8, 2008. JULY 8, 2008. JULY 8, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the relevant pleadings and documents on record. 3. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent. Mr.Abhyankar waives notice for Respondents. : 2 : 4. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. 5. The order which is impugned in this Writ Petition is an interlocutory order passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai on 27th February 2008 below Exhibit 7 in Appeal No.579 of 2007. By this order, the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has directed the Petitioners/tenants to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) per month from the date of decree till end of that month with effect from 1st March 2008 and for future months, during the pendency of Appeal at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) per month on or before 10th of every English calender month. The Appellate Court has further permitted the Respondents/landlords to withdraw sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) per month out of the deposit made by the Petitioners/tenants and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be invested for a period of one year. This direction has been issued while entertaining the tenants’ Appeal : 3 : against decree of eviction, keeping in mind the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s.Federal M/s.Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s.Federal M/s.Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s.Federal Motors Pvt.Ltd. reported in 2005(1) RCJ 23 (SC) Motors Pvt.Ltd. reported in 2005(1) RCJ 23 (SC) Motors Pvt.Ltd. reported in 2005(1) RCJ 23 (SC) and Anderson Wright & Co. v. Amar Nath Roy & Ors. and Anderson Wright & Co. v. Amar Nath Roy & Ors. and Anderson Wright & Co. v. Amar Nath Roy & Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 489. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 489. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 489. Indeed, it is open to the Appellate Court to impose conditions while entertaining the tenants’ Appeal, but the conditions to be imposed should necessarily be just and equitable; not only for the landlord but also for the tenant so as to enable him to prosecute his Appeal. 6. I refrain from expressing any other opinion in this order at the request of the Counsel for the Respondents, as that may affect the merits of the contentions available to both the parties. Instead, the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Court is set-aside and the original application Exhibit 7 for interim relief prayed by the tenants during the pendency of the Appeal is restored to the file of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court for reconsideration on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions in : 4 : that application will have to be addressed on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned decision or for that matter, the present order. 7. I am informed that the Appeal between the parties itself has been fixed for hearing on 22nd July 2008. If it is so, the parties may consider of inviting a final verdict on the Appeal instead of agitating the question regarding the interim compensation to be paid during the pendency of Appeal, if the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court is so inclined. That is a matter which will have to be considered by that Court. In the event, the parties agree for proceeding with the hearing of the Appeal itself, in that case, it will be open to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court to consider the Appeal and not proceed with the interim application, if the Appellate Bench is of the view that the said Appeal can be disposed of not later than two months from today. However, if the Appeal cannot be disposed of within two months from today for any reason whatsoever, the Appellate Bench may consider of deciding the interim : 5 : application on its own merits. 8. Parties through Counsel assure that they will extend full cooperation to the Appellate Bench for early disposal of the Appeal itself. For any reason, if the Appeal cannot be disposed of within specified time under this order, the Appellate Bench may then decide the restored application Exhibit 7 within such time. 9. Since the Respondents through Counsel assure that the possession of the Petitioners will not be disturbed without following due process of law, no order in that behalf is necessary. 10. Petition disposed of on the above terms. 11. In view of this order, Civil Application also stands disposed of. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.