Milapchand Walchand Khadiwala And ORS v. Purushottam Murlidhar Dhawan

apalkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2599 OF 2017 Mr. Milapchand Walchand Khadiwala and Others ....Petitioners V/S Mr. Purushottam Murlidhar Dhawan ....Respondent Shri. S.N. Chandrachood for the petitioners.

Shri. Amit B. Borkar for the respondent.

CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

DATE : 23rd June, 2017 P.C. :

Rule. Respondent waives service. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order below Exh.4 dated 17.12.2016.

3.

The facts of this case are that the plaintiffs (the petitioners herein) filed Civil Suit No.260/2013. This suit was ultimately decreed by a judgment and order dated 25.01.2016. Being aggrieved by this decision, the tenant (the respondent herein) preferred Civil Appeal No.387/2016 and also made an application seeking stay of the execution of the impugned decree. It is in this application that the impugned order has been passed. 4.

Though the plaintiffs placed on record the ready reckoner, which shows the valuation of these very premises at the rate of Rs.57,450/- per sq.mtr. as the value for sale, according to

apalkar the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, the same has not been taken into consideration and the learned Appellate Court has fixed a compensation of a meager amount of Rs.1,000/- per month and that too without assigning any reason whatsoever. Mr. Borkar submitted that there is no need to interfere with this order because the only document placed before the learned Appellate Court was the ready reckoner and, therefore, the learned Appellate Court was fully justified in fixing the interim compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.

5.

I have heard both sides. Perused the papers and proceedings in the writ petition. On going through the impugned order, I find that there are no reasons assigned as to on what basis the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that Rs.1,000/- per month would be fair interim compensation pending the appeal. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17.12.2016 is set aside and the application for stay of the decree dated 25.01.2016 is restored back to the file of the Appellate Court to be heard afresh and in accordance with law. It is made clear that both parties will be at liberty to file any additional documents, if they so desire, in support of their respective contentions. 6.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 7.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)