1 WP 5888/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5888 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Dilip Bodake for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 3RD AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 23 June 2010 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge­1, Satara. 2. Respondent no.1 is the landlord and the petitioners are the tenants. In a suit for possession filed by the respondent no.1, a decree for possession was passed against the petitioners by the trial court. The petitioners filed an appeal in the District Court and applied 2 WP 5888/10 for stay of the execution of the decree for possession. Unconditional stay for execution of the decree for possession was granted exparte on 13 January 2010. Thereafter the respondents appeared and made a prayer for directing the petitioners to pay higher mesne profit/compensation. By an order dated 23 June 2010, the Court expedited the hearing of the appeal and directed the petitioners to file private paperbook so that the appeal could be heard and decided before 31 August 2010. The appeal court further directed that in the event the appeal was not decided before 31 August 2010, the petitioners would be liable to deposit in the Court Rs.2,500/­ per month with effect from 1 September 2010 till the disposal of the appeal. 3. It is now settled by the decision of the Supreme Court that as a condition for stay of execution of the decree for possession passed in favour of the landlord, the appeal court can 3 WP 5888/10 direct the defendant to deposit the amount equivalent to market rent as compensation in the Court. The present order appears to have been passed in conformity with this. Further more, the order has been passed to expedite the hearing of the appeal and to ensure that the appeal is expedited and that the petitioners do not unnecessarily delay the hearing of the appeal after having obtained the order for stay of execution of the decree for possession, they have been directed to deposit the money at market rent in the Court. Considering the nature of the suit premises which are commercial premises/shop situated in the famous hill station of Panchgani, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.2,500/­ is in any way excessive or exorbitant. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)