1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application (CAF) No.551 of 2011 In First Appeal No.1436 of 2009 Connected with First Appeal No.1437 of 2009 (Vivek s/o Late R. Mokadam v. Kiran w/o S. Nashine) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri V.R. Mokadam, Applicant in person. Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for Appellant. Shri H.V. Thakur, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in First Appeal No.1437 of 2009. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 10 th March, 2011 1. This Court had passed an order dated 21-2-2011 admitting both these First Appeals. The decree for possession has been passed against the appellant/defendant and in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The said decree has been stayed by this Court. While staying the decree, liberty was granted to the respondent/plaintiff to file an application proposing therein the terms and conditions to be imposed upon the appellant/defendant 2 for grant of stay. Accordingly, Civil Application No.551 of 2011 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff. In the said civil application, the claim of the respondent/plaintiff is that the appellant/defendant should be directed to furnish security to the tune of Rs.92,400/- per month towards occupation of the premises in question, for which the decree for possession has been passed. He submits that the prevailing rate of the premises in question is Rs.20 per sq.ft. for commercial and residential purposes. The total amount calculated at this rate of Rs.20 per sq.ft. for the premises having the area of 4620 sq.ft., comes to Rs.92,400/-. Hence, it is claimed that the appellant/defendant be directed to deposit the said amount from the date of passing of the decree. 2. Shri Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant, submits that the appellant/defendant is in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement dated 12-8-1994 and the suit for specific performance of this agreement was filed. The said suit has been dismissed by the Trial Court. He, therefore, submits that this Court had admitted both the First Appeals for consideration. He further submits that 3 it was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the appellant/defendant was a licensee in respect of the premises in question for the licence fee of Rs.1,500/- per month. This is not disputed by the respondent/plaintiff. He, therefore, submits that the appellant/defendant is ready and willing to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of passing of the decree. He further submits that the appellant/defendant is also ready and willing to deposit the yearly amount in advance in this Court till both the First Appeals are disposed of. 3. In view of the fact that the respondent/plaintiff had himself claimed that the appellant/defendant was licensee in respect of the premises in question for licence fee of Rs.1,500/-, it would be just and proper to accept the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant that the appellant/defendant shall deposit in this Court an amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month as a condition for continuation of an interim order. Both the First Appeals have been admitted and require consideration. Hence, the following order is passed. 4. The appellant/defendant shall deposit an amount at the 4 rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of passing of the decree, i.e. 30-9-2009 till December, 2011, in this Court within a period of six weeks from today. The appellant/defendant shall continue to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for twelve months in advance, in the month of January every year till the disposal of the appeals. This arrangement is without prejudice to the rights of the parties. 5. The office is directed to accept the amount so received and to invest it in a fixed deposit, after expiry of two months from the date of its receipt, in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years, and to be renewed thereafter, as per the order of the Court. 6. The civil application stands disposed of accordingly. Judge pdl