WP--11194-26.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 11194 OF 2026

JM Financial Asset Reconstruction

Company Ltd.

Acting in its capacity as trustee of

JMFARC BOI 2009 Trust

Having its registered of�ce at

7

th

Floor, Cnergy, Appasaheb Marathe

Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025

and corporate of�ce at

Of�ce No.22, Lloyds Centre Point,

Appasaheb Marathe Marg,

Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. ...Petitioner

Versus

1. Mumbai Port Authority

(formerly the Board of Trustees

of the Port of Mumbai),

a statutory corporation

constituted under Section 3 of the

Major Port Authorities Act, 2021,

having its registered of�ce at

V�aydeep Building, Shoorji

Vallabhdas Marg, Fort,

Mumbai - 400001.

2. The Estate Of�cer, Mumbai

Port Authority, an of�cer

appointed under Section 3 of the

Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorized Occupants) Act,

1971, having his of�ce at Estate

Division, 3

rd

Floor, V�aydeep

Building, Shoorji Vallabhdas

Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001.

3. Shubh Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.,

a private ltd. company having

its registered of�ce at 30,

SAINATH, PA 1/23

SAINATH

SANJAY

BODKHE

Digitally signed

by SAINATH

SANJAY BODKHE

Date: 2026.09.10

22:15:07 +0530

WP--11194-26.DOC

P. J. Ramchandani Marg,

Opposite Radio Club, Colaba,

Mumbai – 400 005.

And

Flat No.2001, Bulding No.116,

Sayba Elegant, Nehru Nagar,

Near Nehru Nagar Police Station,

Mumbai – 400024.

4. Bank of India,

Corporate Banking Branch,

4

th

�oor, 70/80 M. G. Road,

Mumbai – 400023.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

…Respondents

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate, Ms. Huzan Bhumgara ,

Mr. Areez Gazdar, Mr. Dhruv Dandekar, Ms. Letishiya

Chaturvedi i/b Veritas Legal, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mandar Bangale,

Ms. Sarita Yadav, Ms. Pearl Pais, i/b Bangale &

Associates, for the Respondent No.1.

Mr. Vividh Tandon, i/b Mr. Mehul Thakkar, for Respondent

No.3.

Mr. Ojas Gole, for Respondent No.4 – Bank of India.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CORAM :N. J. JAMADAR, J.

RESERVED ON :31

st

AUGUST 2026

PRONOUNCED ON :10

th

SEPTEMBER 2026

JUDGMENT:

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the

consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard �nally.

SAINATH, PA 2/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

2.By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to an order

dated 02

nd

July, 2026, passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil

Court, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0100286/2026,

whereby while granting stay to the execution and operation of

the order passed by the Estate Of�cer (R-2) in case No.

EO/E/(135)(135-A)(135-B)/2013 under the provisions of the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act ,

1971 (“PP Act, 1971”), the learned Principal Judge, City Civil

Court, directed the petitioner – appellant to deposit 20% of the

amount ordered to be paid by the Estate Of�cer (R-2) by way of

compensation for unlawful occupation of the inquiry premises.

3.Shorn of super�uities, the background facts necessary

for the determination of this petition, can be stated as under :-

3.1The Petitioner is an Asset Reconstruction Company

registered with the Reserve Bank of India under Section 3 of

the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act,

2002”).

3.2The Respondent No.1 is a Port Authority constituted

under Section 3 of the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 (“Port

Act, 2021”). The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the land

SAINATH, PA 3/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

admeasuring 1,036.71 sq. mtrs. bearing C.S. No.10/384 of

Colaba Division, together with all buildings standing thereon

(“inquiry premises”).

3.3The Respondent No.3 is a Private Ltd. Company registered

under the Companies Act, 1956. The Respondent No.3 was

assigned leasehold rights in the inquiry premises by the

Respondent No.1 under a letter dated 04

th

September, 2006.

The Respondent No.3 obtained credit facilities from Respondent

No. 4 – Bank against the mortgage of the leasehold rights in

the inquiry premises.

3.4On 18

th

August, 2009, the petitioner acquired the said

debt together with security interest in the inquiry premises

from Respondent No.4 – Bank, under an assignment agreement

and a subsequent deed of recti�cation dated 02

nd

December,

2012. The petitioner claimed to have obtained the possession of

the inquiry premises on 06

th

August, 2012 by following the

procedure prescribed under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3.5On 13

th

February, 2013, the Respondent No.1 instituted

an Eviction Petition before the Estate Of�cer (R-2). The

Respondent No.1,

inter alia, sought an amount of Rs.

8,07,02,917.27/- (Rupees Eight Crores Seven Lakhs Two

SAINATH, PA 4/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen and Twenty Seven Paise )

towards arrears of rent/compensation and service tax.

3.6During the pendency of the said eviction proceeding, the

Respondent No.1 purportedly introduced a new Scale of Rates

(SORs) of rent for the period 01

st

October, 2012 to 30

th

September, 2017; 01

st

October, 2017 to 30

th

September, 2022

and for the period 01

st

October, 2022 to 30

th

September, 2027.

Thereupon, an amendment was sought in the Eviction Pe tition

seeking enhanced arrears of rent/compensation.

3.7Eventually, by an order dated 09

th

June, 2026, the

Respondent No.2 passed an order for eviction of the

Respondent No.3, Respondent No.4 and the petitioner from the

inquiry premises under the provisions of Section 5(1) of the PP

Act, 1971. The Respondent No.2 also assessed the damages on

account of unauthorized occupation of the inquiry prem ises

and directed the respondents in the said

proceedings/petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, to

pay an amount of Rs.275,78,61,569/- (Rupees Two Hundr ed

Seventy Five Crores Seventy Eight Lakhs Sixty One Thousand

Five Hundred and Sixty Nine) by invoking the powers contained

in Section 7(1)(2)(2A) of the PP Act, 1971.

SAINATH, PA 5/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

3.8Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before

the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai. In the

said appeal, the petitioner �led an application for stay to the

execution and operation of the order passed by the Es tate

Of�cer (R-2). The learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court after

taking into account the fact that, the petitioner has been in the

occupation of the inquiry premises since more than 13 years

and

prima facie there was nothing to show that, the petitioner

was entitled to occupy the inquiry premises without payment of

any charges, granted stay to the execution and operation of the

order passed by the Estate Of�cer subject to deposit of 20% of

the amount of compensation granted by the Estate Of�cer (R-2)

within a period of 8 weeks.

3.9Being aggrieved by the imposition of the condition to

deposit 20% of the compensation awarded by the Estate Of�cer

which comes to Rs.55,15,72,313/- (Rupees Fifty Five Cro res

Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Three Hundred and

Thirteen), the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of

this Court.

4.I have heard Mr. Ashish Kamat, the learned Senior

Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Girish Godbole, the learned

SAINATH, PA 6/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.1, at some length. The

learned Counsel for the parties took the Court through the

pleadings and the material on record including the various

orders passed by the Authorities under the SARFAESI A ct,

2002 and this Court in writ petitions preferred by the parties.

5.Mr. Ashish Kamat, the learned Senior Advocate for the

petitioner, submitted that, the impugned order suffers from the

vice of non-consideration of any of the grounds urged by the

petitioner while seeking stay to the execution and operation of

the order passed by the Estate Of�cer (R-2). The impugned

order, Mr. Kamat would urge, borders on an order sans reasons

and betrays non-application of mind. Secondly, the learned

Principal Judge did not properly appreciate the fact that there

was a complete failure of justice as the Estate Of�cer (R-2)

passed the �nal order without providing an effective

opportunity of hearing. The order passed by the Estate Of�cer,

thus suffers from patent legal in�rmity on account of breach of

the principles of natural justice and fundamental principles of

judicial process. Thirdly and most importantly, the very

substratum of the determination of compensation by the Estate

Of�cer (R-2) was dismantled with the Division Bench judgment

of this Court in the case of Arsheesh Jamshed Wadia & anr. vs.

SAINATH, PA 7/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority & ors.

1

, delivered on 25

th

August, 2026 as the new Scale of Rates (SORs) were quashed

and set aside by the Division Bench. Although the Division

Bench judgment was delivered subsequent to the passing of

the impugned order by the learned Principal Judge, yet, the

orders passed by both the Estate Of�cers and the learned

Principal Judge are rendered untenable as the principle of

consequential orders applies.

6.Mr. Kamat, took the Court through the history of the

proceedings in the matter of the determination of rent by the

Respondent No.1 and the decisions of this Court as well as the

Supreme Court holding that, the Respondent No.1 cann ot

resort to pro�teering like a private landlord.

7.Fourthly, Mr. Kamat would submit, the petitioner being a

secured creditor, it could not have been saddled with th e

liability to pay the rent and/or compensation at all or at least

for the period prior to the date, the petitioner came into

possession of the inquiry premises.

8.Lastly, Mr. Kamat would urge, the direction to deposit

20% of an exorbitant and fanciful compensation determined by

1 WP(O)/3143/2022

SAINATH, PA 8/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

the Estate Of�cer (R-2) is wholly onerous and unreasonable.

Such a condition frustrates the statutory right of app eal,

submitted Mr. Kamat.

9.To lend support to his submission that, it is not

peremptory that in every case where stay is granted to the

execution of a money decree, the condition of deposit b e

imposed, Mr. Kamat placed reliance on the judgment of th e

Supreme Court in the case of Lifestyle Equities C. V. & anr. Vs.

Amazon Technologies INC.

2

10.Per contra, Mr. Girish Godbole, the learned Senior

Advocate for the Respondent No.1, submitted that, in the

peculiar facts of the case, the direction to deposit 20% of the

compensation ordered to be paid by the Estate Of�cer (R-2)

cannot be said to be unreasonable. Laying emphasis on the fact

that, the petitioner has not paid any amount towards t he

rent/charges for the occupation of the inquiry premises, for

over 14 years, Mr. Godbole submitted that, it is not open for the

petitioner to urge that, being a secured creditor, the petitioner

cannot be directed to pay the rent/occupation charges. Mr.

Godbole submitted with a degree of vehemence that, the

2 (2026) 3 SCC 641

SAINATH, PA 9/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

petitioner went ahead with the acquisition of the debt and the

purported security interest in the inquiry premises despite a

clear and categorical condition in the letter of assignment of

leasehold rights that, the Respondent No.3 was not entitled to

mortgage the leasehold rights in the inquiry premises, without

prior written permission of the Respondent No.1.

11.Mr. Godbole, further urged that, in WP/502/2013, the

petitioner was put to notice that the Respondent No.1 had the

claims against the Respondent No.3. Thus, while disposing of

the said writ petition, the petitioner and Respondent No.4 –

Bank were directed to bring the notice of the prospec tive

auction purchaser of the property, the Respondent No .1’s

claims in respect thereof, the said writ petition, the order

passed therein and the proceedings under PP Act, 197 1

pending before the Estate of�cer (R-2). Yet the petitioner

brazenly continued to occupy the inquiry premises witho ut

paying any rent/occupation charges in clear breach of t he

terms subject to which the leasehold rights in inquiry premises

were assigned to the Respondent No.3. Thus, there ar e no

equities in favour of the petitioner.

SAINATH, PA 10/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

12.Mr. Godbole further submitted that, the Division Bench

judgment of this Court in the case of Arsheesh Jamshed Wadia

(supra), does not govern the assignment of the leasehold rights

in the inquiry premises, under the letter dated 04

th

September,

2006. The petitioner having acquired the purported security

interest in the inquiry premises with open eyes, cannot be

permitted to wriggle out of the liability to pay the

rent/occupation charges in accordance with the terms of the

contract.

13.I have given anxious consideration to the submissions

canvassed across the bar.

14.At the outset, it is necessary to note that the instant

petition assails a discretionary order granting stay to the

execution and operation of the eviction order passed by the

Estate Of�cer (R-2), during the pendency of the appeal

thereagainst. All the issues in regard to the legality, propriety

and correctness of the order passed by the Estate Of�cer (R-2),

impugned in the said appeal, are to be adjudicated by the

Appellate Authority. It would, therefore, be inadvisable to

trench upon the merits of the challenges to the order passed by

the Estate Of�cer (R-2), impugned before the Appellate

SAINATH, PA 11/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

Authority, as there is a clear risk of pre-judging the matter

before a decision is rendered by the Appellate Authorit y.

Therefore, this Court considers it expedient to con�ne

consideration in this petition to the justi�ability of the direction

to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount ordered to be

paid by the Estate of�cer (R-2) as a condition for the stay to the

execution and operation of the order passed by the Es tate

Of�cer (R-2).

15.First and foremost, the nature of the order impugned

before the Appellate Authority deserves to be noted. By the

said order, the Estate Of�cer has directed the eviction of the

Petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 invoking the pow er

under Section 5(1) of the PP Act, 1971. The Estate Of�cer has

assessed the damages in respect of the unauthorized

occupation of the inquiry premises and directed payment of

damages along with interest aggregating to Rs.275,78,61,569/-

under Section 7 of the PP Act, 1971.

16.The assessment of damages is at the heart of the

controversy. It is the case of the Petitioner that the damages

have been assessed taking into account the revised SOR s

SAINATH, PA 12/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

which have been quashed and set aside by the Division Bench

in the case of Arsheesh Jamshed Wadia (supra).

17.Before adverting to this contentious issue, it may be

apposite to note the initial terms of the assignment of leasehold

rights by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.3. Under

the letter dated 4 September 2006, the leasehold rights were

assigned in favour of Respondent No.3 for the residual period of

lease, expiring on 7 August 1932. The agreed rent wa s

Rs.6,64,147.53 p.m. with a stipulation for increase in rent by

4% p.a. The rent was to be subject to the decision of the Board

on the approach paper to deal with the gray areas in the

implementation of the Supreme Court judgment. Clause 20 of

the said letter provided for levy of interest @ 18% p.a., or at

such rate as may be revised by the Board of Trustees, on late

payment of monthly rent / compensation.

18.Evidently, the terms of assignment of leasehold rights as

to the term of assignment and the rent payable, were explicitly

clear. The submission of Mr. Kamat was that the cave at in

clause 3 of the said letter made it clear that, the Respondent

No.1 was also cognizant of the fact that the rent agreed to be

paid was subject to the implementation of the Supreme Court

SAINATH, PA 13/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

judgment in regard to the charge of rent by Respondent No.1.

Thus, the decision in the case of Arsheesh

Jamshed Wadia (supra), governs the initial �xation of rent for

the inquiry premises.

19.With this clarity on facts and the contours of dispute, it

is imperative to note that, the directions for deposit of rent even

at a rate higher than the contractual rate, as a condition for

the grant of stay to the execution and operation of decree for

eviction is a well recognized measure to balance equities, where

the possession of the person seeking protection from eviction is

declared to be unlawful and unauthorized.

20.In the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. V/s. Federal

Motors (P) Ltd.

3

, on which reliance was placed by Mr. Godbole,

the Supreme Court, inter alia, enunciated that, while

exercising the jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellate Court has the power to put

the tenant-appellant on terms. Though the right to �le an

appeal against the order of eviction is statutory, yet, the prayer

for grant of stay to the execution of the eviction decree is

required to be dealt with in exercise of equitable discretionary

3(2005) 1 SCC 705

SAINATH, PA 14/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

jurisdiction of the appellate Court. While ordering stay the

appellate Court has to be alive to the fact that it is depriving

the successful landlord of the fruits of the decree and is

postponing the execution of the order for eviction. There is

every justi�cation for the appellate Court to put the tenant-

appellant on terms and direct the appellant to compensate the

landlord by payment of a reasonable amount which is n ot

necessarily the same as the contractual rate of rent. However,

such terms shall be reasonable.

21.In the said case, the Supreme Court has culled out the

propositions, as under :

“19. To sum up, our conclusions are:-

(1) while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of

Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the

appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the

applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its

opinion reasonably compensate the decree-holder

for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree

by the grant of stay order, in the event of the

appeal being dismissed and in so far as those

proceedings are concerned. Such terms, needless

to say, shall be reasonable;

(2) In case of premises governed by the provisions

of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the

de�nition of tenant contained in clause (l) of

SAINATH, PA 15/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

Section 2 of the Act, the tenancy does not stand

terminated merely by its termination under the

general law; it terminates with the passing of the

decree for eviction. With effect from that date, the

tenant is liable to pay mesne pro�ts or

compensation for use and occupation of the

premises at the same rate at which the landlord

would have been able to let out the premises and

earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the

premises. The landlord is not bound by the

contractual rate of rent effective for the period

preceding the date of the decree…..”

22.A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of

State of Maharashtra and Anr. V/s. M/s. Super Max

International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

4

, af�rmed the aforesaid

conclusions in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.

(supra). The Supreme Court further clari�ed the position, as

under :

“46. In light of the discussions made above we

hold that in an appeal or revision preferred by a

tenant against a order or decree of an eviction

passed under the Rent Act, it is open to the

appellate or the revisional Court to stay the

execution of the order or the decree on terms,

including a direction to pay monthly rent at a rate

higher than the contractual rent. Needless to say

4

SAINATH, PA 16/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

that in �xing the amount subject to payment of

which the execution of the order/ decree is

stayed, the Court would exercise restraint and

would not �x any excessive, fanciful or punitive

amount.”

23.These decisions were followed by the Supreme Court in

the case of Sumer Corporation V/s. V�ay Anant Gangan

5

.

24.This Court is conscious of the fact that the aforesaid

decisions have been rendered in a situation where the

possession of the tenant was declared to have become unlawful

from the date of the passing of the decree of eviction. However,

the propositions that, the person who seeks stay to t he

execution of the decree for eviction is liable to pay the rent /

compensation for the unlawful occupation of the subject

premises and while �xing the amount of compensation for the

unlawful occupation to be paid as a condition for the stay to

the execution of the order/decree, the Appellate Court should

exercise restraint and would not �x excessive, fanciful or

punitive amount, apply with equal force in a situation of the

present nature. Lest, the statutory right of appeal would be

rendered illusory.

5AIR 2022 SC 5756

SAINATH, PA 17/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

25.In the case at hand, it is pertinent to note, it is nowhere

the claim of the Petitioner that, it has paid any rent o r

occupation charges since the date it entered into the

possession of the inquiry premises. The fact remains that

since 6 August 2012, the Petitioner has been in the occupation

of the inquiry premises without payment of any rent / charges

whatsoever. The liability to pay arrears of rent in accordance

with the contractual obligations of Respondent No.3 – debtor,

before the Petitioner obtained the possession of the inquiry

premises in the capacity of the secured creditor may be

debated. Whether the Petitioner is liable to pay those arrears

of rent and charges, etc., can be said to be a matter to be

decided by the Appellate Authority in the pending appeal.

However, the Petitioner can hardly dispute the liability to pay

the rent / charges for the occupation of the inquiry premises at

least since the date it came in possession thereof.

26.It cannot be ignored that, what was acquired by the

Petitioner was the security interest in the nature of leasehold

rights in the inquiry premises. Thus, the Respondent No.1 can

under no circumstances be deprived of the right to recover the

rent / occupation charges in respect of the inquiry premises, of

SAINATH, PA 18/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

which the Respondent No.1 is indubitably the owner.

27.At this stage, it is necessary to note that, initially the

claim of the Respondent No.1 before the Estate Of�cer was

con�ned to the arrears of rent / charges for the period 4

December 2006 to 30 September 2012, aggregating to

Rs.8,07,02,917.27/-. Incontrovertibly, during the pendency of

the eviction proceedings, Respondent No.1 amended the claim

so as to recover the arrears of rent / charges as per the revised

scale of rates.

28.In this proceeding, having regard to the limited nature of

the controversy, this Court is not inclined to delve deep into the

implications of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case

of Arsheesh Jamshed Wadia (supra), on the claim of

Respondent No.1 for the arrears of rent / charges as the appeal

before the Appellate Authority is yet to be heard. Suf�ce to note

that, the Division Bench quashed and set aside the Noti�cation

dated 29 October 2021 �xing the scale of rates for the period 1

October 2012 to 30 September 2017 and the Noti�cation dated

18 December 2021 �xing the scale of rates from 1 February

2017 to 30 September 2022 as those Noti�cations overreached

the compromise proposals and the decision of the Supre me

SAINATH, PA 19/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

Court and also on the ground that the scale of rates were

revised with retrospective effect.

29.Prima facie, this Court �nds substance in the submission

of Mr. Kamat that the determination of the damages by the

Estate Of�cer (R2) draws support and sustenance from the

revised scale of rates, which the Division Bench has quashed

and set aside. Therefore, the direction for the deposit of the

amount equivalent to 20% of the compensation awarded by the

Estate Of�cer (R2) as a condition for stay to the execution and

operation of the order passed by the Estate Of�cer (R2), as a

measure of balancing equities, may not be sustainable as the

edi�ce of the determination of the compensation becomes

tenuous.

30.Conversely, this Court is not inclined to accede to the

submission on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner does

not bear any liability to pay rent/occupation charges.

Incontrovertibly, the Petitioner is in the occupation fo the

inquiry premises since 6 August 2012. In the least, the

Petitioner would be required to pay rent/charges for th e

occupation of the inquiry premises at the contractual rate with

an increase of 4% p.a.

SAINATH, PA 20/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

31.Whether the very �xation of the contractual rate of rent is

affected by the Division Bench decision in the case of Arsheesh

Jamshed Wadia (supra), is a matter which may be required to

be adjudicated upon by the Appellate Authority. It would be

inadvisable for this Court to embark upon an inquiry on this

aspect while the appeal awaits adjudication.

32.Nonetheless, even on conservative basis, in the

considered view of this Court, the Petitioner cannot escape the

liability to pay rent/occupation charges at the contractual rate

from 6 August 2012, subject to the �nal order that may be

passed by the Appellate Authority.

33.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to

interfere with the impugned order and modify the quantum of

the amount to be deposited by the Petitioner as a condition for

grant of stay to the execution and operation of the order passed

by the Estate Of�cer (R2). A condition to deposit the amount

equivalent to the rent �xed and payable under the letter dated

4 September 2006 by which leasehold rights were assigned to

Respondent No.3, from the date the petitioner has been in the

occupation of the inquiry premises upto this month, but

SAINATH, PA 21/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

without interest, would balance the equities between the

parties.

34.Hence, the following order :-

: : O R D E R : :

(i) The Writ Petition stands party allowed.

(ii) The impugned order stands modi�ed as under:

(a) The effect, operation and execution of the order

passed by the Estate Of�cer (R2) in Case No.

EO/E/(135)(135-A)(135-B)/2013 shall remain stayed

until further orders by the Appellate Authority

subject to the Petitioner-Appellant depositing an

amount towards compensation at the rate of rent

�xed under the letter dated 04

th

September, 2006, as

it obtained on 6

th

August 2012, alongwith 4% annual

increase in the rent, from 6

th

August 2012 till 5

th

September 2026 (i.e. for 14 years and one month) in

the Court of learned Principal Judge, City Civil

Court, Mumbai, within a period of four weeks from

today.

(b) It is clari�ed that the observations were

con�ned to determine the justi�ability of condition to

SAINATH, PA 22/23

WP--11194-26.DOC

deposit the amount and the learned Principal Judge,

City Civil Court shall decide the Appeal on its own

merits and in accordance with law without being

in�uenced by any of the observations in the

impugned order.

(c) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

No costs.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

SAINATH, PA 23/23