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.1736 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1736 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1736 OF 2008 1. Kirit Purshottam Kapadia & ors. Petitioners Vs. 1. Nandkishore @ Nandlal Vasantji Thakkar @ Batavla & Anr. Respondents. Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar for the Petitioners. Mr.A.M.Saraogi for Respondent no.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 9th January, 2009. : 9th January, 2009. : 9th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioners are the owners/landlords of the shop premises in question situated at Shop No.1 with rear roofed portion situated on the ground floor of House bearing No.3-5-7, 117-121A, Vithal Wadi, Oval Wadi, Mumbai-400002. The trial Court decreed the suit of eviction by order dated 14.02.2007. Respondent no.1 preferred the Appeal in question. The same has been admitted by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. As an application for stay of the execution of the decree was moved, the petitioners/landlords resisted the said application and prayed for compensation on the basis of Atma Ram Atma Ram Atma Ram Properties Properties Properties Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705 and Anderson Wright & Co. vs. Amar Nath SCC 705 and Anderson Wright & Co. vs. Amar Nath SCC 705 and Anderson Wright & Co. vs. Amar Nath Roy Roy Roy & ors., (2005) 6 SCC 489 & ors., (2005) 6 SCC 489 & ors., (2005) 6 SCC 489. The Appellate Bench ( 2 ) granted stay of the decree on the condition of deposit of compensation of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the decree till disposal of the Appeal. The petitioners had produced evidence of adjoining premises fetching monthly rent of Rs.32,000/- per month for a premises admeasuring 127.92 sq.ft. The premises in question is 340 sq.ft. which, according to the petitioners, would fetch Rs.85,053/- per month as per market rate. Therefore, challenge is made by the petitioners/landlods and prayed to fix compensation at the rate of Rs.85,053/- per month instead of Rs.10,000/- as ordered. 2. In the judgment dated 7th January, 2009 in Writ judgment dated 7th January, 2009 in Writ judgment dated 7th January, 2009 in Writ Petition Petition Petition No.6858/2008-Chandrakant Dhanu & Anr. v. No.6858/2008-Chandrakant Dhanu & Anr. v. No.6858/2008-Chandrakant Dhanu & Anr. v. Sharmila Sharmila Sharmila Kapur & ors., Kapur & ors., Kapur & ors., I have observed various facets which the Appellate Court need to consider while fixing provisional amount/figure as a compensation/rent as a condition precedent to grant stay of eviction decree. 3. Therefore, in view of this, only with regard to the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- which is admittedly above 25 times of the existing rent be considered afresh as there is no challenge made by the tenants/respondents to grant of this compensation of ( 3 ) Rs.10,000/-. 4. In view of above, the impugned order is modified partly and quashed and set aside. The writ petition is partly allowed to the above extent. The lower Appellate Court to reconsider the matter afresh in view of above as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. This, in no way, entitle the respondents/tenants not to deposit the amount already directed. The final order will be subject to adjustment if any. The parties to cooperative in the matter. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)