:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1279 OF 2007 PETITION NO.1279 OF 2007 PETITION NO.1279 OF 2007 Mohan Shankar Bhokre ..Petitioner V/s Prabhakar Narayan Nigudkar and others ..Respondents. Mr. Sandeep K. Shinde i/b Vinod Shah for the petitioner. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar,Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sangram Singh Jadhav for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : A.A. SAYED, J. A.A. SAYED, J. A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. 1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The present petition impugns order dated 6-10-2006 passed by Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Kolhapur, by which order the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 1500/- per month for the use and occupation of the suit premises along with all arrears and to continue to deposit the same in Court. 3. The petitioner is the the defendant in the suit filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for possession of the suit premises comprising of two rooms. The :2: respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit and the owners of the suit premises. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had purchased the suit property from respondent No.1 by registered sale deed in 2002. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a gratuitous licensee in the suit premises since 1st June, 1980 and the licence was given to the petitioner to use the suit premises by the respondent No.1, for a period of 1 month only. The respondents have revoked the licence and filed a suit for possession and mesne profit. The petitioner’s case on the other hand is that he is the tenant of the suit premises since June 1980. 4. The respondents filed an application under Order 15A Rule 1 for directions to the petitioner to pay licence fees of Rs. 6000/- per month from 1st August 2005. The petitioner had also filed an application contending that he is the tenant of the suit premises and that he is ready and willing to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month from 1st April, 2002, on which date the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had purchased the suit property. :3: 5. The applications of the petitioner and that of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were decided by common order dated 6-10-2006, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 1500/- per month with arrears from 5-4-2002 and to continue to deposit by the same. Hence, the above writ petition by the petitioner impugning the said order. 6. I have perused the impugned order and the material on record. The learned Trial Judge has relied upon the evidence in the form of cross-examination of the petitioner in Misc. Application No.176/1995 wherein the petitioner has admitted that according to him, the rent in respect of the suit premises would be approximately Rs. 1500/- per month and accordingly fixed the rent of Rs. 1500/- per month to be deposited for the use of the suit premises. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had in fact demanded Rs. 6000/- per month for the use of the premises. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was willing to deposit rent at the rate of of Rs. 225/- per month and that this :4: amount of Rs. 225/- was also being sent by money order to respondent No.1. He has however, fairly stated that the money orders were not accepted by the respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out a copy of assessment extract of the local authority, in respect of the suit premises which is annexed to the petition which shows the rate of Rs. 225/- per month. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there should be an independent enquiry in arriving at the figure of rent to be deposited in Court and the demand of the respondents or the petitioner’s estimate of rent as stated in his cross-examination in another proceeding ought not to be taken in to consideration. He further contended that application of the respondents under order 15 rule 1 is not maintainable. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand, submitted that the learned trial Judge has arrived at the figure of Rs. 1500/- per month on the own showing of the petitioner and as estimated by the petitioner in his own cross-examination. He contended that there was no :5: rent receipt or written contract in that regard. Moreover, no declaratory suit has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be a tenant of the suit premises. In the circumstances the amount of Rs. 1500/- per month cannot be said to be excessive. He further submitted that this amount has been granted as a discretionary relief by the trial Court and that the trial Court had arrived at the amount by exercising its judicial discretion in this matter and this Court in its writ jurisdiction should not interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 9. I have perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. In my view, considering the material on record, the reasoning of the trial Court in arriving at the figure of Rs. 1500/- per month and directions to deposit the same alongwith all the arrears from 5-04-2002 cannot be faulted with. There is no error, infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court to call for any interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10.. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule :6: stands discharged. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)