IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6107 OF 1999 Eknath Shivram Kothavale ...Applicant Versus Vithal Shivgir Gosavi & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Hardas i/b Mr.P.N.Joshi for Applicant. Mr.Sachin Dhakephalkar i/b Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar for Respondents 1 to 5. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JULY 11, 2008. JULY 11, 2008. JULY 11, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Application is for stay of operation of the Judgment and Decree during the pendency of the Writ Petition. 2. Ordinarily, when the tenant is in possession of the premises and the decree is subject matter of challenge before the superior Court, the possession will have to be protected. : 2 : Nevertheless, as observed in the case of Atmaram Atmaram Atmaram Properties Pvt.Ltd. vs. Federal Motors Pvt.Ltd. Properties Pvt.Ltd. vs. Federal Motors Pvt.Ltd. Properties Pvt.Ltd. vs. Federal Motors Pvt.Ltd. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705, indulgence can be shown to the tenant on imposing reasonable conditions. In the circumstances, the question is: what should be the reasonable compensation to be paid by the Applicant/tenant during the pendency of this Petition? 3. It is seen from the record that the suit premises consisting of three rooms is in the possession of the Applicant since prior to 1976. The monthly rent which was paid by the Applicant since then is in the sum of Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten) only. The suit premises are let out for business purposes and now are being used by the Applicant for residence and cattle shed. Counsel for the Applicant accepts that the Applicant is doing business in the suit premises, besides using it for residence. According to the Applicant, sum of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred) may be reasonable compensation to be offered in respect of suit premises, taking into consideration overall circumstances including the fact that the premises : 3 : are situated at Taluka place in Nashik District. 4. The Respondents although were served with the present Application which is filed in December 2007, have not bothered to file any reply to oppose this Application or to assert that the fair market rent of the premises will be much more than the one mentioned by the Applicant’s Counsel across the bar. The only argument of the Respondents is that this Court should expedite the hearing of the Petition, keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court in order dated 15th November 2002. That aspect is independent of the issue as to on what condition, interim protection should be granted to the tenant. 5. It is not in dispute that the Petition came up for admission on 4th December 2007 after the same was restored to the file in terms of the order of the Apex Court. On that date, the Writ Petition has been admitted. The Petition will now proceed for hearing under caption ‘Expedited Supreme Court Cases’ as per its turn. : 4 : 6. For the time being, it is ordered that the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below shall remain stayed during the pendency of Writ Petition, on condition that the Applicant shall pay compensation in respect of the suit premises in the sum of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred Only) per month from the date of this order on regular basis before 10th of every English calender month to the Respondents/landlords. Even in case of two defaults, the interim protection will stand vacated forthwith without further reference to the Court and the Respondents will be free to proceed in relation to the suit premises on the basis of impugned decree. 7. Application disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.