Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2067 of 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1642 of 2004 M.K.Jagasia & ors. ...Applicants V/s. Jagit Singh Paul & anr. ...Respondents Mr. H.K. Vazirani for the applicants. Mr. P.S.Dani for respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2009 : 9TH JANUARY, 2009 : 9TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the order dated 30th July, 2008 as well as pleadings in Civil Application No. 2371/2007. Although there is substance in the argument of the applicant that 1/12 th of the amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- ought to be around Rs. 31,000/- per month, however, it is not possible to grant that relief having regard to the claim made by the applicant in the Civil Application No. 2371 of 2007. The applicant in the said Application asserted that market value of the property in question is around Rs. 70 lacs. and on that basis has prayed to award only Rs. 7000/- per month as monthly compensation. It is well established position that the Court ought not to grant relief which travels beyond the one prayed by the applicant. Applying that principle, although the 2 grievance of the applicant is correct, I will have to accede to the argument of the respondent tenant that a direction cannot be issued against the tenant to pay amount beyond what has been asked by the applicant himself in the Civil Application No. 2371/2007. 2. Counsel for the applicant would then contend that the Respondents be directed to pay at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month atleast from the date of order. It is not possible to accept that argument. The order dated 30th July, 2008 considers that aspect and has limited the liability of the respondent tenant to pay arrears of compensation determined by the Court (now in the sum of Rs. 7000/- per month) w.e.f. August, 2007. In the circumstances, the operative order will now stand modified to the following effect. (a) The Respondent tenant shall pay monthly compensation at the rate of Rs. 7000/- w.e.f. August, 2007 within four weeks from today, if already not paid. The Respondents shall pay the difference of the balance amount on the above basis in addition to the amount already deposited by the respondents in terms of order dated 30th July, 2008. (b) The Respondent tenant shall regularly pay 3 monthly compensation at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month for future English calender months on or before 10th of every English calender month directly to the applicants/landlord, failing which interim relief operating in favour of the tenants in the pending Writ Petition No. 1642 of 2004 shall stand vacated forthwith without further reference to the Court. That shall be the consequence even in case of one default committed by the tenant to comply with any of the above condition. (c) Needless to observe that this arrangement will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties including the right of the landlord to ask for suitable mesne profits for the entire period after the date of the institution of the Suit or otherwise. All questions in that behalf will have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. (d) The arrangement directed in paragraph 5 of the order dated 30th July, 2008 shall remain as it is. 3. After this order is dictated, the applicant appeared in person and addressed the Court. According to him, the amount which is provided in terms of this 4 order will not be sufficient to meet the actual expenditure incurred by the applicant towards maintenance of the Building. That is not the issue which has to be addressed in the present application. If the landlord-applicant is so advised, he may take recourse to such other suitable remedy which will be considered on its own merits. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]