dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7106 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7106 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7106 OF 2008 1. Manik Chand Jain Petitioner Vs. 1. Madhavlal N. Pitte, 2. Mr.J.D.Shaikh Respondents. None present. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 9th January, 2009. : 9th January, 2009. : 9th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. The challenge is by original defendant no.2 whose Appeal No.312/2007 against the eviction decree dated 5.2.2007 is still pending. The Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay directed the Appellant to pay Rs.19,600/- per month as a condition for stay of the execution. The trial Court declared the Appellant/petitioner as unlawful occupant of the premises. Therefore, grant of payment of compensation is essential condition and to that extent the order is correct. The Appellant is unlawful sub-tenant as held. I am interfering with the order depositing the amount of Rs.19,600/- per month based upon copy of Expert’s report regarding market rent of the suit premises. The Court has straightway accepted the said report and ordered the compensation. ( 2 ) 2. It is to be noted that no protection of Rent Control Legislation is available to the persons who are in the occupation of the premises unauthorisedly. The Appellant being declared unauthorised occupant/sub-tenant, the Court need to be considered his case, not from the point of view of landlord/tenant relationship, but still while fixing the compensation, pending the Appeal, while granting stay of the execution of the decree, by giving full opportunity to the parties, may fix appropriate/reasonable amount of compensation in view of the various factors I have expressed in the judgment judgment judgment dated 7th January, 2009 in Writ Petition dated 7th January, 2009 in Writ Petition dated 7th January, 2009 in Writ Petition No.6858/2008-Chandrakant No.6858/2008-Chandrakant No.6858/2008-Chandrakant Dhanu & anr. v. Sharmila Dhanu & anr. v. Sharmila Dhanu & anr. v. Sharmila Kapur Kapur Kapur & ors. & ors. & ors. 3. In view of the above, the impugned order to the extent of depositing the amount is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Court to re-consider the application by giving full opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate order based upon the material available as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of the copy of the order. The parties to cooperative in the matter. The landlord should not suffer loss of his ( 3 ) compensation for want of further delay. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner, be adjusted. 4. Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed to the above extent. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)