1 Ca 2320-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2320 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2484 OF 2006 Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan ..Applicant Vs Sarojben Mahendra Shah ..Respondent -- Mr.Vivek Kantawala with Ms.Sneha Nanandkar i/b.Mr. Vivek Kantawala & Co., for the applicant. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16 th NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C: Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent. Reply of the respondent is taken on record. Respondent is the petitioner in the writ petition and the applicant is the respondent in the writ petition. Writ Petition filed by the respondent has been admitted for final hearing. Decree for possession has been passed by the Small Causes Court. The challenge in the writ petition is to the decree of eviction. The execution of the decree has been stayed by interim order passed in the writ petition. 2 Ca 2320-10 2] The prayer in this application is for a direction to the respondent to deposit reasonable compensation. The contention of the applicant is that the suit premises admeasuring 320 sq. ft. of carpet area is situated on the second floor of a building located at the junction of Lohar Chawl, S.K.Menon Street and Kitchen Garden lane. It is contended that it is located in the heart of the city and the present market rate of compensation in respect of suit premises will be minimum Rs.18,240/- per month. A reliance is placed on the report of the valuer in support of the said contention. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application. He has placed reliance on order dated 22 nd April, 2009 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.4143 of 2009 which restrains the present applicant from withdrawing the amount deposited by the respondent in this application. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that considering the facts of the case, no direction can be issued as prayed by the applicant. 3] I have considered the submissions. In view of the law which is well settled, as a condition for continuation of stay, the respondent will have to pay a reasonable compensation from the date of decree till the date of disposal of writ petition. It appears that the suit premises is located in the heart of the city in a commercial area. The area of suit premises is 320 sq. ft. The allegation is that the respondent is using the suit premises for commercial purpose. 4] The building in which suit premises is situated is very old. It is constructed in the year 1912. In the valuation report relied upon by the applicant there is no reference to the condition and the stability of the 3 Ca 2320-10 building. Considering the area of the premises and location thereof, the respondent will have to deposit a reasonable sum of Rs.5,000/- per month by way of compensation from the date of the decree. This amount will be over and above the contractual rent. A reasonable time deserves to be granted to the respondent to deposit the arrears. 5] Hence, application is disposed of by passing the following order: (a) Interim order passed in the writ petition shall continue to operate till the disposal of the writ petition, subject to the condition of the respondent (petitioner in writ petition) depositing with the trial Court a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of reasonable compensation over and above the contractual rent. This amount shall be payable from the date of decree of possession which is impugned in the writ petition. (b) Time is granted to the respondent to deposit arrears payable upto 30 th November, 2010, till 31 st March, 2011. However, the respondent (petitioner in writ petition) shall continue to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- with the trial Court from December, 2010 onwards, on or before 15 th date of every calender month. (c) In view of the order dated 22 nd April, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4143 of 2009, the applicant plaintiff 4 Ca 2320-10 shall not be permitted to withdraw the said amount deposited by the petitioner and the same shall be invested in fixed deposit from time to time. [A.S.OKA, J]