Dismissed

Mr. Binni K. Joseph v. Shri. Jagjit Singh

Bombay HC5 Feb 2014WP/1184/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order staying execution and fixing monthly compensation for possession of suit premises under Article 227. The court found the Appellate Court had properly considered factors and fixed a reasonable rate, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no interference with the impugned order appointing Rs 7000 per month as compensation.

Mr. Binni K. Joseph Vs Shri. Jagjit Singh — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(907)WP-1184-13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.1184 OF 2013

¶4

Mr.Binni K. Joseph .. Petitioner Vs. Mr.Jagjit Singh .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Mohan Pillai for the petitioner

¶6

Mr.H.K. Vazirani with Ms.Pushpa H. Goswami, Advocate for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : SHRI R.G. KETKAR, J DATED : 5^th FEBRUARY 2014.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1 Heard Mr.Mohan Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.H.K.Vazirani, learned counsel for the respondents, at length.

¶10

2 By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had challenged the judgment and order dated 22^nd March 2013 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai below Exhibit-9 in Interim Notice in Appeal No.115 of 2011. By that order, the Appellate Court stayed the execution and operation of the judgment and decree dated 19^th November 2011 passed by the learned Judge,CR No.6 of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in R.A.E.

1/4

tilak

(907)WP-1184-13

Suit No.719/1113 of 2003 subject to the petitioner depositing in the Court an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month towards the compensation of the suit premises from the date of the decree till final disposal of the Appeal. The petitioner was given time to deposit the arrears within three months from the date of the order and the petitioner was further directed to continue to deposit monthly compensation from April 2012 till the final disposal of the Appeal on or before 10^th day of each month. The Registrar of the Court was directed to invest the amount of compensation if deposited by the petitioner from time to time in any nationalized bank in Fixed Deposit scheme till final disposal of the Appeal.

¶15

3 In support of this submission, Mr.Pillai strenuously contended that the condition imposed by the Appellate Court in directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.7,000/- is highly oppressive. He submitted that the suit premises admeasures 120 sq.ft. He further submitted that because of the obstruction caused by the respondents, the petitioner is not in a position to carry on the business. Because of the obstructions caused by the respondent, it will not be possible for his customers to enter the suit premises.

2/4

tilak

(907)WP-1184-13

4 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. He submitted that the petitioner has completed his arguments before the Appellate Court. The Appeal is partheard and on behalf of the respondent also, almost arguments are concluded. He further submitted that the impugned order is passed on 22^nd March 2012, and having regard to the fact that the hearing of the Appeal is on the verge of completion, no interference is called for. Apart from that, on merits, he submitted that after considering the relevant factors, the Appellate Court has fixed the compensation which is reasonable.

¶20

5 I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. The Appellate Court noted that the suit premises admeasures 150 sq.ft. The Court also considered the photographs brought on record by the respondent which show that the suit premises is situated in Hotel Neel Kamal building. In paragraph no.28, the Appellate Court noted the various factors which are required to be considered while fixing the compensation. In paragraph no.30, the Appellate Court took judicial notice of the fact that the prices of real estate are increasing day by day. The suit premises is around 150 sq.ft and it is commercial premises on

3/4

tilak

(907)WP-1184-13

the ground floor. The Appellate Court also considered the decision of the Apex Court in Atmaram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd, 2005 (1) SCC 705. While fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/- the Appellate Court also noted that the petitioner herein did not bring any material on record.

¶25

6 After considering the material on record, and as also having regard to the fact that the impugned order is passed on 22^nd March 2012 and the hearing of the Appeal is almost complete, I do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Appellate Court has properly fixed the recent compensation @ Rs.7,000/- per month after considering the relevant aspects. In view thereof, Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶26

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)

¶27

4/4

¶28

tilak

Mr. Binni K. Joseph v. Shri. Jagjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Binni K. Joseph v. Shri. Jagjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Vishwanath Sidramappa Dasare Vs Shri Shivshankar Sidramappa Mundewadi and Anr.

Shri Vishwanath Sidramappa Dasare Vs Shri Shivshankar Sidramappa Mundewadi and Anr.

M/S.Haute Couture(Regd) and Others Vs Smt.Jyoti Prabhakar Kharwandikar and Others

Shri a. Bashir a. Jabbar Shaikh and Anr. Vs Haji M. Isak Haji Motilal Tamboli

Mr Shantilal Devji Shah Vs M/S Ashwin Enterprises

Shri a. Bashir a. Jabbar Shaikh and Anr. Vs Haji M. Isak Haji Motilal Tamboli