1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 334 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2006 Ravindra Mohan Shetty ....Applicant. Vs. Jaitunbi Jafar Husain Muslim & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Sachin U. Dhakephalkar for the Petitioner. Mr. G.S. Godbole i/by Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 17th March, 2010 P.C.:- 1 The Petitioner-Applicant moved this Civil Application for modification of order dated 14th August, 2007 passed in Civil Application No. 1883 of 2006 in pending First Appeal No. 746 of 2006. The S.L.P. against this order is also dismissed, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that the First Appeal be heard expeditiously. 2 This Court by order dated 16th February, 2009 directed that the First Appeal be listed for final hearing in the week commencing from 15th June, 2009. As the Applicant moved a Civil Application to join the Chief Executive Officer, M.S.E.B. Thane as a necessary party for supply the electricity connection/meter. 2 3 The Applicant had also filed M.A No. 301 of 2002, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, under Section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act for restoration of the electricity. It was dismissed. Therefore, the Revision Application No. 2 of 2006 in the District Court at Thane, as filed is still pending for hearing. The submission is that pending this proceeding, this Court has directed to pay enhanced compensation as observed in paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 which are as under, therefore operative order passed accordingly:- “7 I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellant is using the said premises for commercial purpose, the monthly charges at the rate of Rs.11,000/- should be taken as use and occupation charges hereinafter pending the decision of the present first appeal. This amount according to me is reasonable and fair amount to be compensated by the applicant who is occupying the said premises in question even though there is a decree in favour of the Plaintiff. 8 The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in this background the defendant/respondent should cooperate in so far as supply of electricity connection or meter in his name as because of their objection it was initially rejected. 9 In this background, I am of the view that pending the decision of the present first appeal the respondent/original plaintiff should cooperate to see that applicant should get all the basic amenities like electricity and water, till the decision of the first appeal.” 4 As there was no electricity supply, applicant moved a Contempt Petition which was disposed of as withdrawn on 23/09/2009. The Court has observed as under:- “Advocate for the petitioner states that he would like to 3 withdraw this contempt petition. And to file Civil Application in the First Appeal seeking modification clarification of the order or further order from the first appellate court. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” 5 Apart from delay and not taking steps within the reasonable time and undisputed position on record, there are various applications filed by the Applicant for the same relief and the same are pending. The observation so made in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 now just cannot be read as specific directions against the owner. The Applicant has already availed various remedies to seek specific directions. The Trial Court may consider the case filed by the Appellant in accordance with law. The non-observation of anything in the operative part of the order dated 14th August, 2007 should not be the reason not to consider the case of the Applicant on merit, if a case is made out. 6 In view of this, with liberty to the Applicant to take out appropriate proceedings/ steps. The present Civil Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)