Balurghat Transport Company Ltd. v. Rawal Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Judgment

1. The petitioner, a private limited company has faced a suit for eviction of the suit premises in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, being T.E.& R. Suit No.6 of 2004. The petitioners lost in the said suit. The petitioners filed Appeal No.21 of 2011. In the said appeal proceedings, petitioners filed an application for stay of the execution of the decree. The learned Bench of the Court of Small Causes in the said application below Exhibit 9 passed an order dated 29.6.2012 thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2948/- being the component towards aggreed monthly rent. In addition to the aforesaid Salgaonkar 1 /6 amount, the learned Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/- with effect from the date of the decree i.e. 4.2.2011. Further arrangements are directed as to how the amounts deposited in the court are to be appropriated. It is noticed that the amount of Rs.32,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner is to be invested in a nationalized bank and the said amount will not be paid to the respondent. This order dated 29.6.2012 is

challenged in this petition.

2. It is common ground that the suit premises admeasure 1200 sq.ft. and are situated at Masjid Bunder which is primarily an area where most of the premises are used for commercial purposes. In order to place before the court the probable amount of compensation, which could be fetched by the respondents, the respondents presented report of Architect by name Dadbhawala Architects, Engineers & Valuers Pvt. Ltd. By the said report the said Architect opined that the sum of Rs.1,26,000/- p.m. could be fetched for the suit premises. The petitioners presented a report filed by Architect M/s. Kiran Sowani & Salgaonkar 2 /6 Associates, who opined that the premises could fetch Rs.20,000/- p.m.. While doing so, the said Architect relied upon the leave and license agreement dated 14.7.2010 concerning the premises situated in another building in the locality where suit premises are situate. It is common ground that the suit premises are used by petitioners for commercial purpose.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Sabnis appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the learned Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes has erred in fixing the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.32,000/- p.m., particularly when the Architects of the petitioners had opined that the sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. could be fetched. He contended that the amount fixed by the learned Bench is excessive and that it requires modification.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vashi appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the figure fixed by the Court of Small Causes is very low, keeping in view the figure suggested by Architect Salgaonkar 3 /6 of respondents and that in fact, the said compensation is required to be enhanced. He pointed out the relevant portion of the impugned order by which the learned Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes had considered various aspects as to the use of the premises, the area of the premises, the locality in which the premises are situate and the market conditions with reference to the compensation which can be fetched. Learned Advocate Mr. Vashi, submitted that the petition is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival copntentions. The emphasis on the instance of leave and license to arrive at the figure of Rs.20,000/- p.m.is misconceived, particularly because the instance does not pertain to the building in which the suit premises are situated. The court will have to take judicial notice of the fact that the premises situated in Masjid Bunder are high value premises and the premises fetch substantially good compensation even though at times the building in which the premises are situated is old. After having considered the impugned order, I am inclined to observe that the learned Bench of the Salgaonkar 4 /6 Court of Small Causes has arrived at a reasonable figure to fix the amount of additional compensation. This has been done after considering all the necessary aspects of the matter. It is also required to be noted that this amount is not to be paid to the respondents and is ordered to be invested and is subject to the result of the appeal. If this be so, it does not cause immediate prejudice to the petitioners. The petitioners, on payment of the amount as per impugned order will be able to enjoy the premises till disposal of appeal. Taking an overall view of the matter, I am inclined to uphold the impugned order and hence this petition will have to be dismissed.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Sabnis, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the order dated 29.6.2012 was to be implemented by today and the said time has practically expired in as much as it would not be possible for the petitioner to pay the amount by today after the disposal of this petition. He prayed that time be extended atleast for a period of four weeks. Learned Advocate Mr. Vashi opposed by contending that the petitioner is a private limited Salgaonkar 5 /6 company. They were aware of the impugned order and they should have made arrangements to keep the fund ready to comply with the order in the event of losing before this Court.

7. Considering rival contentions, I am inclined to take lenient view and grant extension of time to comply with the order dated 29.6.2012 upto 31.10.2012.

8. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. ORDER I) ii) Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. Time to comply with the order dated 29.6.2012 passed by the Appellate Bench of Court of Small Causes below Exhibit 9 in Appeal No.29 of 2011 in T.E.& R. Suit No.6/8 of 2004 is extended upto

31.10.2012. Consequences shall follow for non compliance of this order. Salgaonkar 6 /6 [R.Y.GANOO, J.]