1 lpa229-07 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1948 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3082 OF 2001 Simha Tobi Aaron. ... Appellant. V/s. Martu Purushottam Nayak & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Adv. i/by N.R. Bubna for Appellant. Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7th MARCH, 2011 P.C. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the Appellant (original Defendant No. 3) challenging theinterim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07/09/2007. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed the present appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of compensation for occupying the suit premises. The suit premises in question is located at Shivaji Park, Dadar. The said flat consists of three rooms which includes kitchen. Both the Courts below found that the appellant had no right to occupy the flat against which the Appellant has filed a substantive writ petition which is pending in this Court. Since the Small Causes Court as well as the Appellate Court also found that the present appellant has failed to prove that she and her family members are using the flat commonly with the deceased Soloman. Ultimately though the appeal of the present appellant was allowed on the ground that at the relevant time 2 lpa229-07 some of the defendants were minors and guardian was not appointed. Considering the said fact, the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of the landlord to fix interim compensation at Rs. 15000/- and interim compensation is fixed at Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the aforesaid facts, this is not a case where this Court would like to interfere with the impugned order. Since it is not in dispute that as per the finding of the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench that the appellant has no right to occupy the said flat, unless the rights are decided in the pending writ petition, the impugned order is not required to be interfered with. We request the learned Single Judge to try to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 2. It is clarified that the observations made by the learned Single Judge as well as by us will have no bearing on the hearing of the writ petition. Since we have dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, we have not dealt with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that since the impugned order is passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. 3. On the oral application of the learned counsel for the appellant, time to deposit the arrears, if any, is extended by a period of two months from today. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)