1 CRA-9.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2010 Peoples Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. .... Applicant Vs. Mrs. Anita Anil Lokre & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with B.K. Raje for the Applicant. Shri Dipen T. Furia for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 15, 2010 P.C: 1. Heard both the learned counsel. This revision is directed against an order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes whereby the Appellate Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant against an order passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes granting the following prayers: a.pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the Defendants their agents, servants and/or persons claiming through them by restrained by an order of this Hon ble Cout from eliminating parting with possession 2 CRA-9.10 and/or creating any third party interest of the suit premises situated at Bandu Gore Marg, Station Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. b. pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the Defendant No. 1 be restrained by an order of Injunction from granting any extension and/or from executing any further license in favour of the Defendant No. 2 in respect of the suit premises situated at Bandu Gore Marg, Station Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. 2.The Defendant No.2 is hereby directed to deposit in Court the compensation under the Licensee Agreement dated 01/07/1999 every month at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date this order till final disposal of the present suit. The Plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw the same as and when deposited. The order of deposit is on account and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. It is not clear as to how the applicant, who is the owner of the property, feels fettered by these orders in taking out legal proceedings against the licensee-defendant No.2 if his licence has expired. All that the learned Judge has done is to restrain the applicant from parting with possession i.e., inducting anyone else in the property, or executing any further 3 CRA-9.10 license in favour of defendant No.2 which pre- supposes that the applicant i.e., the society/landlord is in de jure possession. 2. As far as the order directing defendant No.2 to deposit Rs.5,000/- per month as compensation towards the agreement and allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the same, the interest of all the parties could be secured if direction to defendant No.2 to continue to deposit the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- is maintained and the amount is ordered to be invested in interest earning deposit in any nationalised bank so that whosoever wins takes the money. With this modification in the impugned order, that is, instead of allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the amount, the amount be ordered to be deposited in interest earning deposit in any nationalised bank for the benefit of such party as may eventually be decided, the revision application is disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)