1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. FIRST APPEAL NO.246/2009 Smt.Sulochana Rajaram Gurav and another. ..Appellants -VERSUS- Harishchandra Shivram Gurav and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Suresh Gole, Advocate for the appellants. Ms.Jyoti Chavan, Advocate waives service for the respondent No.1. Mr.S.P.Thorat, Advocate waives service for the respondent No.3. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The basic question raised in the present appeal is about the scope and ambit of the term “occupier” appearing in the MHADA Act. The said question raised in the appeal requires consideration, hence, admit. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. JUDGE 2 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.937/2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.246/2009 Smt.Sulochana Rajaram Gurav and another. ..Applicants/Appellants -VERSUS- Harishchandra Shivram Gurav and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Suresh Gole, Advocate for the applicants/appellants. Ms.Jyoti Chavan, Advocate waives service for the respondent No.1. Mr.S.P.Thorat, Advocate waives service for the respondent No.3. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The present respondent No.1 has succeeded before the Trial Court and the suit filed by the appellants has been dismissed. Thus, during the pendency of the appeal the respondent No.1 cannot be prohibited from enjoying the occupation of the premises in question. It is informed by the learned counsel that the newly 3 constructed premises are not yet allotted, but construction is completed and the same would be allotted at any moment. 3. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties on instructions from their clients who are present in the Court suggest that the respondent No.1 in view of exclusive occupation of the premises would pay Rs.500/- per month to the appellants. The said amount of Rs.500/- would be payable from November, 2007 onwards during the pendency of the first appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the arrears to be worked out at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from November, 2007 to February, 2009 would be paid within a period of two months from today. Further statement has been made that on or before 10th day of every month a sum of Rs.500/- would be paid to the appellants by the respondent No.1. 5. The statement is accepted. Ordered accordingly. 6. In the event of two consecutive defaults by the respondent No.1 to pay the amount, would result in vacation of this arrangement. It is agreed that the said amount shall be paid by cheque in the name of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 7. The Civil Application, accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE