* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2008 (for modification of order dated 31 st July, 2008) IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 438 OF 2007 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 458 OF 2007 Shri.Govind Gajanan Dabholkar .....Applicant V/s. Bombay Suburban Art & Craft Education Society & Ors. .....Respondents --------- Mr.R.M.Nakhwa i/by.Vasant Dhawan, adv.for applicant. Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Counsel i/by. Mr.K.J.Abhichandani, adv.for respondent no.1. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 24 th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. This Civil Application is filed by the original respondent seeking modification of the order dated 31st July, 2008 passed in Civil application No. 458 of 2008. The respondents to the application who are the original revision applicants oppose the application for modification. 2. By Civil Application No. 438 of 2007 the applicant had * 2 * sought a direction to the revision applicants to pay a sum of Rs.46,21,57.43/- being the arrears of rent/compensation for the use of the suit premises after passing of the eviction decree. The said amount was calculated on the basis of rent at the rate of Rs.88,664.89/- per year as per the report of the valuer. The applicant, relying upon a decision of the apex court in the case of Pradip Kumar vs. Hajari Lal reported in 2008(3) S.C.C. page 1689 had submitted that after passing of the eviction decree since the revision applicants are continuing to occupy the demised premises, they are expected to pay reasonable compensation for occupying the land. After hearing both the sides, this court had directed the revision applicants to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month from June 2005 to July, 2008. The applicant states that while passing the order, this court had asked Mr.Nakhwa, his learned counsel to calculate 60% of the rent fixed by the valuer, so that the same could be treated as compensation payable by the revision applicants to occupy the demised land. While calculating the amount of 60% of the annual rent, Mr.Nakhwa committed an error by taking into account only the annual rent for the year 2005. There has been substantial upward revision in the annual rent as seen from the valuers report. The annual rent for the year 2005 was of Rs.1,15,000/- whereas that for the year 2008 is of Rs.2,47,467/-. 3. Mr.Nakhwa, the learned counsel for the applicant submits * 3 * that since he had to do the calculation, in a hurry, he committed an error in taking into account the annual rent for the year 2005 alone. Mr.Thorat, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amount of Rs.60,000/- fixed by the court is a reasonable compensation and there is no precedent for the direction that the amount of compensation payable should be 60% of the annual rent calculated by the valuer. There is no doubt that there is no such law of precedent. However, this court had asked the calculation of approximate 60% of the annual rent based upon the facts of the case cited by the applicants. If the annual rent for all the four years since the year 2005 are taken into account and 60% of that is to be treated as compensation, the same in the opinion of this court would be Rs.96,099/-, a little on the higher side. What is contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various decision on the subject is payment of reasonable compensation for occupying the demised land after eviction decree. 4. In my opinion, after taking the annual rent for all the four years into account, the reasonable compensation payable by the revision applicants would be Rs.85,000/- per month. Hence, the order dated 31st July, 2008 is modified. The revision applicants shall deposit compensation at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per month for the period June 2005 till date. They shall continue to deposit compensation in the court at the rate of Rs.85,000/- per month on/or before the fifteenth of each month till further * 4 * orders. The revision applicants have already deposited a sum of Rs.22,20,000/- in compliance of the order dated 31st July, 2008. They are directed to pay the difference in the compensation payable within a period of eight weeks from today i.e. on/or before 19th December, 2008. On the application of the learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that the entire amount deposited by the revision applicant be invested in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank. The applicant is at liberty to receive quarterly interest payable on the fixed deposit. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J]