Allowed

Dr. Vinay Krishnarao Thorat and Others v. Sanjay Murlidhar Zope

Bombay HC26 Aug 2022IA/3543/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application matter, the High Court considered the quantum of compensation a judgment debtor must deposit to secure his/her continued occupancy of a flat against the decree holder. The Court ordered a monthly deposit of Rs. 10,000/- from March 1, 2022, with arrears due within three months.

What did the court decide?

Permission to deposit Rs. 10,000/- per month compensation from 1/3/2022; arrears due within three months; direction to continue existing restraint on third-party interests till the revision's decision

Dr. Vinay Krishnarao Thorat and Others Vs Sanjay… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

32 IA-3543-2022.doc

¶2

BDP-SPS-TAC

¶3

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶4

Digitally signed by BHARATDASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2022.08.26 17:35:19 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3543 OF 2022

¶6

¶7

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.623 OF 2009

¶8

Dr. Vinay Krishnarao Thorat and Others ….Applicants. V/s Sanjay Murlidhar Zope …. Respondent.

¶9

Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for the Applicants. Mr. Satyajeet A. Rajeshirke for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶11

DATE: AUGUST 26, 2022

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

1] Based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 , decree holder has moved the present Application, seeking directions to deposit compensation.

¶14

2] Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/decree holder would urge that adjoining property similar to the one which is put to non-residential use is fetching monthly rent of Rs 30,000/-. He would further urge that similar flat is fetching rent of Rs 21,000/- in adjoining building. As such, according to him, Petitioner-non-applicant/judgment debtor be directed to pay amount of Rs 30,000/- per month. Claim is substantiated, based on certain

1/3

32 IA-3543-2022.doc

documents.

3] Mr. Rajeshirke, learned Counsel for the Respondent/judgment debtor would invite my attention to the order dated 2/8/2011 in which compensation is claimed to have been fixed @ Rs 1200/- p.m. According to him, flat in question is used for residential purpose and the non-applicant/judgment debtor is in advance stage of his life i.e. he is senior citizen. As such, he would urge that Court should have regard to the nature of use, the fact that decree holder has lost proceedings before the Trial Court and also the order of this Court referred above passed on 2/8/2011.

¶19

4] I have appreciated aforesaid submissions.

¶20

5] Fact about commercial property admeasuring 320 sq. ft is fetching monthly rental income of Rs 30,000/-, so also residential property admeasuring 750 sq. ft which is similarly situated as that of the suit property is fetching Rs 21,000/- as rent can be inferred from the available material on record. Admittedly, non-applicant/judgment debtor is in possession of flat on the ground floor, area of which is 690 sq. ft.

¶21

6] In the backdrop of statistic of the property on record as reflected in foregoing para, in my opinion, considering the area occupied by the non-applicant/judgment debtor which is 690 sq.ft. (Flat), it will be appropriate to direct the non-applicant/judgment debtor to deposit

¶22

2/3

¶23

32 IA-3543-2022.doc

¶24

amount of Rs 10,000/- in this Court towards compensation based on the judgment in the matter of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., cited supra. Let the aforesaid amount be deposited from the date of Application i.e. 01/03/2022. The entire amount of arrears be deposited in this Court within a period of three months from today. Non-applicant/judgment debtor shall before 10^th of each English Calendar month shall continue to deposit the said amount of compensation in this Court.

¶25

7] Interim Application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶26

8] The order restraining non-applicant from creating third party interest in the property as was ordered by the Appellate Court is directed to be continued till decision of this Revision.

¶27

3/3

Dr. Vinay Krishnarao Thorat and Others v. Sanjay Murlidhar Zope

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vinay Krishnarao Thorat and Others v. Sanjay Murlidhar Zope

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Skylark Constructions,Thr. Partnershipf Firm Kishor Padmakar Mahajan and Ors. Vs Shahu Sut Kapad Kamgar Sangh, Thr. General Secretary, Shri. Vijaykumar Vishwasrao Kokate

Vinayak Chhaya Co.Op.Housing Society Ltd. Vs Shreedhar Venkatesh Datar and Ors.

Shri. Puna Bairagichandra Parida Vs Mr. Haresh Kanji Patel and Ors.

S. T. Kamgar Ghar Bandhani Sahakari Sanstha, Sangli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dudhganga Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs Uday Kakaso Patil and Ors.

Champalal Trilokchand Vs Padma Raghava Shetty