dgm gm gm 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 WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6175 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6175 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6175 OF 2008 1. Mr.Mohanrao Mallaiah Dussa 2. Mrs.Yamini Mohanrao Dussa Petitioners Vs. 1. Smt.Sunanda R. Desai 2. Mr.Gajanan R. Desai 3. Mrs.Shashikala Rajendra Pai 4. Mrs.Surekha Rajendra Keni, 5. Mrs.Purnima Ashok Prabhu 6. Mr.Geshubhai Jain Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani i/by M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for the petitioners. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate i/by Mr.A.A.Kocharekar for respondents 1 to 5. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 7th January, 2009. : 7th January, 2009. : 7th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioners are claiming ownership of the suit flat. The other side is denying the same and contending that the Appellants/petitioners are obstructionists and, therefore, are not entitled for the protection under the Rent Act. Some third person is in occupation and not the petitioners. There is a decree of possession against the petitioners. The Appeal is admitted and the same is pending for hearing. On application for stay, the Court has directed the Appellants to deposit Rs.15,000/- per month from July, 2008. The petitioners have challenged the same in the present writ petition. 2. The Appellate Court, has considerd the judgment of judgment of judgment of ( 2 ) this this this Court in Writ Petition No.8491/2006 dated Court in Writ Petition No.8491/2006 dated Court in Writ Petition No.8491/2006 dated 22.12.2006-Ram 22.12.2006-Ram 22.12.2006-Ram Mohan Anandrao Karpe & ors. v. Mohan Anandrao Karpe & ors. v. Mohan Anandrao Karpe & ors. v. Smt.Sunanda Smt.Sunanda Smt.Sunanda w/o.Ramakant Desai & ors. w/o.Ramakant Desai & ors. w/o.Ramakant Desai & ors. (annexed to this petition) The same is pertaining to a flat from the same building where the matter was agitated on the same footing. The High Court maintained the order of depositing Rs.15,000/- per month as compensation during the pendency of Appeal. There is no challenge made to the impugned order by the landlord. 3. In view of above, I am of the view that the lower Appellate Court has considered the judgment passed by this Court with regard to the similarly situated building, area and the circumstances. The order of granting Rs.15,000/- per month from July, 2008 need no interference. There is no perversity. The petitioners are claiming ownership. As per the respondents, they are obstructionists. There is no regular relationship of landlord & tenant. 4. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)