1 1 caw.2412.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2412 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7110 OF 2008 Smt. Ayodhyabai J. Suryawanshi. ... Applicant Vs. Sunil Lazarus Anthony. ... Respondent ----- Mr. Deepak Deshmukh i/b H.N. Associates for the Applicant. Mr. S.S.Jinshiwale for Respondent in WP No.7110 of 2008. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. ( IN CHAMBER ) DATE : 19 th October, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Respondent- original Petitioner had deposited amount around Rs.4,80,000/- in this Court towards arrears and compensation amount. That was in compliance with the order of the Court. The Court had permitted the Applicant – original respondent to withdraw the said amount on furnishing solvent surety. Eventually, the writ petition filed by the Respondent came to be dismissed on 27 th January, 2009. That decision has been confirmed even by the Apex Court in view of the dismissal of SLP No.3297-3298 / 2009 on 27 th February, 2009. In other 2 1 caw.2412.10 words, the order of eviction passed against the Respondent, which was subject matter of challenge in writ petition has been confirmed right upto the Supreme Court. The Applicant – original respondent (licencer) is entitled not only to receive back possession of the property, but also the amount towards arrears and compensation deposited by the Respondent – original writ petitioner in this Court. In the circumstances, this application is allowed. It is made clear that the Applicant is free to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the Respondent in this Court during the pendency of the writ petition alongwith interest accrued thereon, if any without any precondition. 3 The argument of the Respondent – original writ petitioner that there is some civil dispute instituted by M/s. Jesus Mary Joseph Developers Private Limited for which reason the Applicant should not be permitted to withdraw the amount, does not commend to me. The Applicant is not claiming through the said developers, but the relief granted to the Applicant in respect of licenced premises ought to be taken to its logical end. 4 Accordingly, application is allowed on the above terms. [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]