IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6421 OF 2009 Ramchandra Bhondiba Sutar ..... ..... ...Petitioner V/s Surajmal Budhmal Lodha ..... ..... . .Respondent. Mr.P.B.Shah, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.D.B.Lonkar, for the Respondents. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 8th December, 2009. PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by consent of both the parties. The present petitioner is tenant against whom a decree for possession has been passed in a suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree the petitioner preferred an appeal and in the said appeal moved an application for stay of the judgment and decree under order 41 rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure. The first appellate court granted stay of execution of decree for possession by imposing condition that during pendency of the appeal the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. 2. It is this order which is challenged by filing present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the premises in question admeasures 225 sq. ft. wherein a cycle shop and pan shop are housed. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner the amount of compensation fixed by the first appellate court is exorbitant and has no nexus with the prevailing rate of rent in the locality. It is a matter of record that rent of the premises had been Rs. 1 200/- per month and as against this the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.15000/- per month. The impugned order is very cryptic and does not spell out reasons for reaching such conclusion. The four line order only speaks of the court having perused the ready reckoner and various authorities. Barring said statement no reasons whatsoever are recorded. The order is bereft of the reasons and does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. As I am of the view that the impugned order is wholly non speaking order the same deserves to be quashed. In the result the order is quashed to the extent it fixes the amount of compensation to be in the sum of Rs.15,000/. Order of stay of execution of decree of possession shall continue. The first appellate court shall afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and shall determine the amount of compensation payable during pendency of appeal after recording reasons in support thereof. Needless to mention that all points touching question of fixation of amount of compensation are left open to be urged before the first appellate court. I am also of the view that having regard to the fact that the landlord is aged about 80 years I deem it appropriate to direct expeditious disposal of the appeal. I hope and trust that the first appellate court shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal within a period of six months from today. Rule made absolute in above terms. 08.12.2009. 2