-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8536 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 8536 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 8536 OF 2006 Mr.S.Jogindersingh Darshan Singh Saigal .. Petitioner. V/s. 1. Smt. Rekha M. Bhambani & Anr. .. Respondents. --- Mr. K.R.Tiwari for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dani for the Respondents. --- CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 06th SEPTEMBER, 2007. DATED : 06th SEPTEMBER, 2007. DATED : 06th SEPTEMBER, 2007. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :- . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner, Kokan Division, refusing to stay the direction to deposit compensation by the petitioner licensee. The learned trial court directed the petitioner licensee to deposit compensation pending decision on an application under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The petitioner challenged that direction in appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner has refused to interfere on the ground that -: 2 :- the order of deposit is an interlocutory order of deposit. In fact, the Addl.Commissioner, Kokan Division has directed the competent authority to pass a specific order as regards the money deposited in the court. 3. Mr. Dani, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents will not ask for withdrawal of the amount deposited, pending the decision by the competent authority. The statement is accepted. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. The competent authority is directed to decide the Case No. 37 of 2006, not later than six months from the next date. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (S.A.BOBDE,J.) .....