1 WP No.830/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.830 of 2011 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ... Petitioner versus Ajitsingh Pargji Ravjiani ... Respondent ... Ms.S.I. Shah i/b M/s.S.I.Shah and Co. for the petitioner CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 4th February 2011 P.C. 1. In my view, this writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed in limine for the reasons indicated below. 2. In a suit for possession filed by the respondent landlord, a decree for possession has been passed against the petitioner. In the appeal (Appeal No.512/07) filed by the petitioner against the order of eviction, the petitioner applied for stay for execution of the decree for possession. By an order dated 13 March 2009, the 2 WP No.830/11 appellate bench of the Small Causes Court granted conditional stay for execution of a decree subject to the petitioner depositing in the court a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as a part payment towards past mesne profits. The order of conditional stay has been confirmed by this court by its order dated 27 July 2009 in writ petition no. 4721 of 2009 filed by the petitioner. After the decision of this court, the petitioner again filed an application in the appellate court for appointment of a government approved valuer for the purpose of determining what would be the prevailing market rate of rent. The application was rejected. Against that order, the petitioner is in this court. 3. In my view, the application made by the petitioner for appointment of a government valuer for determination of a fair market rent of the property was wholly untenable. The court had once determined the amount to be deposited in the court by way of mesne profits. That order was confirmed in the writ petition filed by this court. In the circumstances, there was no question of any review of the order passed by the appellate court as the order was confirmed by this court. I fail to understand what purpose would now be served by appointing a government valuer for determination of the fair market rent. If at all, the petitioner wished, it could have itself appointed a government approved valuer and produced its report before the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court at the time of hearing of an application for stay. That was not done. The petitioner did not apply for review 3 WP No.830/11 of the order but chose to challenge it before this court. As stated earlier the order has been confirmed by this court. As such, there can be no question of any modification of the order of the appellate court regarding deposit of the amount. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)