(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5580 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5580 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5580 OF 2008. Uday More ..Petitioner. V/s. The Western Naval Command And Anr ..Respondents. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION No. 5581 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION No. 5581 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION No. 5581 OF 2008. Smt Sushila More ..Petitioner. V/s. The Western Naval Command And Anr ..Respondents. Mr V. P. Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. DATED: 14. 08. 2008. DATED: 14. 08. 2008. DATED: 14. 08. 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions. 2. Both the petitions are directed against the ad-interim order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in Misc. Appeal Stamp No. 151 of 2008 and 152 of (2) 2008 while staying eviction proceedings passed under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1991. 3. The orders under the challenge are an ad-interim orders pending disposal of appeal subject to the condition that the petitioner-appellant to deposit in the court in each Appeal an amount of Rs. 25,00,000. The premises in question is located at a prime locality, of Mumbai, namely, at Marine Drive, Mumbai. The area of the premises occupied by the petitioner Smt Sushila More is 2000 sq. ft. Whereas, another premises occupied by the Petitioner Mr Uday More is admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. The judicial notice of the fact can be taken of the prevailing rent in the Marine Drive Locality in Mumbai. The learned Court below has calculated the occupation charges on conservative basis @ Rs. 40 per sq. ft. which, by no standards, can be said to be the rent prevailing in the area. The rent prevailing in the area is much beyond three figures. But one may not go to that extent since Court below has calculated @ Rs.40/- per sq. ft which is most reasonable. 4. During the course of hearing, it was suggested (3) to the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that if the Petitioners are prepared to deposit Rs. 15 lacs in each case, then this Court can put this proposal to the respondent for their consideration. However, learned counsel for the petitioners, after taking instructions from his clients expressed inability, even to pay Rs. 15 lacs in each case. In this view of the matter, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by entertaining these petitions so as to interfere the impugned order. 5. The impugned orders are purely discretionary orders based on facts and circumstances of the case. The view taken by the Court below is a most reasonable and possible view. No fault can be found with the view taken. This Court not being a Court of appeal is not expected to substitute its views in place of impugned orders unless it is found to be perverse and unreasonable or based on no evidence. The Petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that interim order which is already operating be extended for a reasonable period so as to (4) approach higher Court. The request made is reasonable. Interim stay is extended by another two weeks from today. With the expiry of two weeks the extended interim order shall automatically come to an end. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)