MAVJI BHURA AND COMPANY Vs. PRAVIN D SOMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil application is taken out by the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent in the civil application are the petitioners in writ petition. The respondents in the civil application are the legal representatives of the original petitioner who died during the pendency of the petition. The dispute relates to suit premises bearing shop no.3 on the ground floor of the building known as 'Bhagwan Bhavan', M. G. Road, Rajawadi, Ghatkopar (East), Bombay. The carpet area of the suit premises is 147 square feet. The agreed rent in respect of the suit premises fixed in the year 1963 was Rs.60 per month. In the suit for eviction filed by the applicants, a decree for possession was passed against the predecessor of the respondents on the ground of carrying out additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises. Decree was also passed on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the tenancy. The said decree was confirmed in appeal preferred by the predecessor or of the respondents. The said predecessor of the respondents filed the aforesaid writ petition for challenging the decree for eviction. The writ petition has been admitted and by way of interim relief, the decree for possession has been stayed.

(2.) The prayer in the civil application is for a direction against the respondents to deposit compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,090 per month from the date of the decree passed by the trial court till the disposal of the writ petition. THE said prayer is based on a report of architects and valuers M/s. Poonager Bilimoria & Co annexed to the civil application. THE civil application was adjourned from time to time to enable parties to settle the dispute. However, parties could not arrive at any settlement. Hence, the civil application was heard.

(3.) The applicants have relied upon an opinion of architects and valuers dated 22nd March, 2004. In the said opinion the valuers have stated that the suit premises is situated in a very important locality on a major road leading from the eastern express highway to Ghatkopar railway station. It is stated that there are large number of shops and commercial establishments along the said road on which the building in question is situated. He stated that the suit premises is situated in a prime locality of a suburb of Bombay like Ghatkopar. THE respondents have not disputed the said part of the report of the valuers. THE agreed rent has been fixed in the year 1963. THE trial court passed a decree for possession in the year 2002 which has been confirmed in appeal in the year 2003. Surely the respondents cannot enjoy relief of interim stay subject to deposit of agreed rent of Rs.94.60/- per month. THE area of the suit shop premises is 147 square feet of carpet area. It is situated in a prime locality of an important suburb of Bombay. THErefore, the respondents will have to pay a reasonable amount by way of compensation as a condition for grant of stay.