1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5580 OF 2008 Uday More .... Petitioner. vs. The Western Naval Command & Anr. .... Respondents. Mr. D.J. Madan, Sr. Adv., with Shyam Mehta & U.S. Singh i/by V.P. Sawant for Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Rajguru with N.R. Prajapati, for Respondents. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 195 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5581 OF 2008 2 Sushila More .... Petitioner. vs. The Western Naval Command & Anr. .... Respondents. Mr. D.J. Madan, Sr. Adv., with Shyam Mehta & U.S. Singh i/by V.P. Sawant for Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Rajguru with N.R. Prajapati, for Respondents. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary issue as regards the maintainability of these Letters Patent Appeals. In our view, taking into consideration the 3 impugned orders apart from the issue of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals, it will be proper to direct the matter to be disposed of expeditiously; that it will be in the interest of both the parties rather than the parties litigating on the issue as to whether the appellate court could have imposed certain preconditions to grant stay to the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer under Sub- Section (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 3. We have gone through the order passed by the Estate Officer dated 17th January, 2008 which is common in both the cases which are the orders in respect of two flats in the occupation of the two appellants. The said order is the subject matter of appeal pending before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, who is the appellate authority in the matter. The learned Principal Judge while considering Misc. Application No. 151 of 2008 and 152 of 2008 filed by the appellants for grant of stay to the order passed by the Estate Officer, directed that in both proceedings ad-interim relief is given to the appellants subject to the condition that they deposit in the court in each matter an amount of Rs. 25 lacs and on an earnest request made 4 by the learned counsel for the appellants the Court further showed indulgence by directing the appellants to deposit Rs. 5 lacs in each matter on or before the 24th June, 2008 and the remaining amount to be deposited on or before 10th July, 2008. Subject to the aforesaid conditions stay of the execution of the order came to be granted. 4. The appellants challenged the said order by preferring writ petitions before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, found that the condition imposed by the appellate court while granting stay appeared to be most reasonable and a possible view in the given facts and circumstances. The learned Single Judge also found that the impugned orders which are ad-interim in nature are purely discretionary orders and, therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the petitions which has resulted in preferring these two Letters Patent Appeals. 5. We have gone through the order passed by the Estate Officer the operative part of which directs the appellants and the 5 persons who may be in occupation of the said premises or any part thereof to vacate the said premises within 15 days of the date of publication of the said order. It further says that in the event of refusal or failure to comply with this order within the period specified above, the appellants and all persons concerned are liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be, by use of such force as may be necessary. 6. There is no issue over the fact that no monetary claim has been adjudicated by the Estate Officer under the impugned order. As such, the issue as to the liability of the appellants for their occupation of the premises in question is yet to be adjudicated and determined by the competent authority. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances it was not just and proper on the part of the appellate authority to impose a precondition to deposit specified sums of money against the appellants to grant ad-interim order staying the effect and operation of the order passed by the Estate Officer. 7. The impugned order merely permits the appellants 6 occupation of the respective tenements on fulfillment of certain conditions i.e., on depositing the sums specified in the order. In our view, if the appeal is expeditiously heard and disposed of that would subserve the ends of justice rather than keeping it pending for indefinite period by imposing such a stringent condition of depositing huge amount assessed by the appellate authority on the basis of certain assumptions, particularly when no such claim was made and determined by the Estate Officer. 8. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellants are liable to pay use and occupation charges and are not going to be available to them so as to recover the amount which is ultimately found due and payable by them if it is established that they are in unauthorised occupation of the public premises in question, Therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the appellate court i.e., the Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order subject to the condition that the parties would extend all possible cooperation in disposing of the matter within the stipulated period. 7 We are making it clear that if any party prolongs the hearing or unnecessarily seeks adjournment in the matter, it would be open for the appellate authority to proceed in accordance with law and decide the appeal within the stipulated period as directed by this Court. This, in our view, sufficiently protects the interest of the parties. 9. The respondents are at liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 if they have got any monetary claim such as mesne profits to be recovered from the appellants. Needless to say that if such proceedings are initiated that may be decided in accordance with law. 10. The appeals stand disposed off accordingly. 11. During the pendency of appeals, there will be stay to the effect and operation of the impugned order which is pending before the appellate authority, till the decision of the two appeals i.e., within a period of three months. 8 12. In view of the fact that we have already disposed of the appeals at the stage of admission, the Civil Applications in these appeals do not survive. The same stand disposed of. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)