Allowed

Patricia (Patsy) Philomena Fonseca and Ors. v. Zaraine Rustam Irani and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Apr 2023IA/18059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application under a civil revision petition, the High Court directed respondents to deposit 50% of arrears within three months and pay monthly compensation of Rs. 65,000 commencing from May 10, 2023, for using suit premises without payment of rent since 2006.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to deposit 50% of Rs. 1,28,05,000/- arrears within three months and pay Rs. 65,000/- monthly compensation from 10th May 2023.

Patricia (Patsy) Philomena Fonseca and Ors. Vs Zaraine… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

63-IA-18059-2022 in CRA-327-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18059 OF 2022 IN

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.327 OF 2018

¶5

Patricia (Patsy) Philomena Fonseca And Ors ...Applicants

¶6

NILAM Digitally signed byNILAM SANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2023.04.1918:01:13 +0530

¶7

IN THE MATTER OF

¶8

Zaraine Rustam Irani And Ors ...Applicants Versus Patricia (Patsy) Philomena Fonseca And Ors ...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Owen Meneles a/w Mr.Beverly Fernandes i/b Darryl Pereora, for the Applicants.

¶10

Mr.Mandar Limaye i/b Mr.Saurabh Oka, for the Original Applicant/for the Respondent in IA.

¶11

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶12

DATE : 18 APRIL 2023

¶13

P.C:-

¶14

. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Respondents be directed to deposit compensation as Respondents are using suit premises which is situated at prime place in Bandra admeasuring about 1400 sq.ft. As per the valuation report the rent of suit premises comes to Rs.5 lakhs per month. Since, the year 2006 the Respondents have not deposited rent amount, hence direction be given to the Respondents to pay

¶15

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

¶16

63-IA-18059-2022 in CRA-327-2018.doc

¶17

the compensation.

¶18

The learned counsel for the Applicant relied on Atmaram properties V/s. Oriental Insurance Co.¹ and State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors² .

¶19

The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the valuation report submitted by the Applicant’s is inflated and is on higher side. The Respondents have also taken out the valuation of the suit premises, as per valuation report of the Respondents. The monthly compensation comes around Rs.54,000/-.

¶20

The learned counsel further submits that the valuation report submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant is as per today’s market rate, the suit premises is more than 100 years old and has not renovated properly. Considering the condition of the suit premises the monthly compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs is excessive. The Respondents are ready to pay monthly compensation @ Rs.65,000/- per month.

¶21

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that if the Respondents are ready to pay Rs.65,000/- per month along

¶22

1 2018 (2) SCC 27

¶23

2 2009 (9) SCC 172

¶24

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

¶25

63-IA-18059-2022 in CRA-327-2018.doc

¶26

with arrears of compensation from the year 2006. The Applicants are ready to accept it, without prejudice to the rights of the Applicants and Respondents and keeping all contentions open. The arrears would come around Rs.1,28,05,000/-.

¶27

The learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that six months time be given to the Respondents to deposit the arrears of compensation.

¶28

The Petitioner No.2/Respondent No.2 is present in Court.

¶29

In view of submissions of both learned counsel, I pass following order.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The Application is allowed. (ii) The Respondents are directed to deposit 50% amount out of Rs.1,28,05,000/- within three months from today and remaining amount after three months.

¶32

(iii) The Respondents shall pay compensation of Rs.65,000/- per month before the 10^th day of every month from 10^th May 2023.

¶33

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶34

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3

Patricia (Patsy) Philomena Fonseca and Ors. v. Zaraine Rustam Irani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patricia (Patsy) Philomena Fonseca and Ors. v. Zaraine Rustam Irani and Ors.

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

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through the Divisional Controller, Thane Vs Smt.Suman Balu Pawar and Anr.

1. Smt. Rajashree Chandrakant Vengulkar and Ors. Vs 1. Mr. Rafik Ahmad Kasim Naikwadi and Ors.

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Nirmala Pratap Giri and Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mrs. Joycee Rozaria D'Silva and Ors.

Sou. Pravina Pradeep Gokhale and Anr. Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Mumbai Legal Hub

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thr.the Manager Vs Smt. Jyostna Gangaram Ghag and Ors.