Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: CNR NO.MHSCA30000982026
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
[BANDRA BRANCH]
(Appellate Bench)
ORDER BELOW EXH.10
IN
A1 APPEAL NO. 06 OF 2026
IN
RAE SUIT NO. 297 OF 1999
Mr. Ashok Vasant Nachankar (deceased)
1(a) Smt. Manisha w/o Ashok Nachankar & Anr
...Appellants/
(Original
Defendants)
Versus
Mr. Vithal Shankar Nalawade … Respondent/
(Original
Plaintiff)
Adv. Dinesh N. Kadam for the appellants.
Adv. J. S. Yadav for the respondent
Coram : Shri Ashish A. Ayachit
Additional Chief Judge,
&
Shri Dipak R. Mali, Judge
Court Room No. 41,
Date :16.04.2026
ORDER : - (Per Shri Dipak R. Mali, Judge)
This is an application filed by the appellants/original
defendants for grant of stay to the execution of the impugned decree
passed by the learned trial court in RAE Suit No. 297 of 1999 dated
30.10.2025.
2. It is contended by the appellants/original defendants that the
-- 1 of 6 --
Exh-10 -Appeal No. 6/2026 2 of 6 Order
present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated
30.10.2025 passed in RAE Suit No. 297 of 1999. The appellants
submitted that, they have good case on merit. If decree for
possession passed by the learned trial court is executed, then they
will suffer grave harm and loss. No prejudice of any nature will be
caused to the respondent, if the stay is granted to the decree. Hence,
it is prayed that the application may be allowed and execution of
decree passed in RAE Suit No. 297 of 1999 dated 30.10.2025 may
be stayed till the final disposal of the present appeal.
3. Respondent /original plaintiff has strongly resisted the
application by filing reply vide Exh. 12 and denied all the
contentions made in the application. He submitted that the
appellants have not made out any case for grant of stay. If the Court
is inclined to grant stay to execution of decree, then, the appellants
may be directed to pay compensation @ Rs. 15,000/ - per month for
its unlawful occupation in respect of the suit premises. The
respondent has filed one of leave and license agreement dated
06.10.2025. Finally, it is prayed that the application may be
rejected.
4. We have heard learned Advocates for both the parties. After
considering the application and reply, following points arise for our
determination and we record our findings thereon with reasons as
under:
-- 2 of 6 --
Exh-10 -Appeal No. 6/2026 3 of 6 Order
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the Judgment and decree
passed in RAE Suit No.297 of 1999
dated 30.10.2025 needs to be stayed? If
yes, on what conditions?
“In the affirmative, as
per final order.”
2 What Order? “As per final order”
R E A SO N S
As to Point Nos. 1 and 2
5. We have heard the learned Advocates for both the parties.
The learned Advocate for the appellants has argued that the decree
of eviction needs to be stayed till disposal of this appeal because the
appellants will suffer irreparable loss if decree is executed by the
respondent.
6. Learned Advocate for the respondent opposed for grant of
stay. He alternatively submitted that if the Court comes to the
conclusion that stay needs to be granted, then the compensation @
Rs.15,000/- per month may be awarded. In support of his
contentions he has annexed the copy of leave and license agreement
dated 06.10.2025 which was executed in respect of premises in the
vicinity where the suit premises is situated having licencee fee @ Rs.
15,000/- per month.
7. Admittedly, RAE Suit No. 297 of 1999 has been decreed by
Judgment and decree dated 30.10.2025 and the appellants/
-- 3 of 6 --
Exh-10 -Appeal No. 6/2026 4 of 6 Order
defendants are directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession
of the suit premises to the respondent /plaintiff. The appellants have
challenged the said Judgment and decree by filing present appeal. If,
the impugned decree to the extent of possession is not stayed till the
judgment in this appeal, then, the substantive right of the
appellants/ Org. defendants to challenge the judgment and decree
would be frustrated.
8. In view of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Atmaram Properties (P) Ltd. V/s.Federal Motors (P) Ltd
reported in (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 705), dispossession
during the pendency of the appeal is generally considered as
substantial loss to the appellants. Hence, it is necessary to stay the
Judgment and decree for possession. At the same time, as per
settled principle of law, reasonable amount needs to be granted for
the use and occupation of the suit premises and to compensate the
respondent (decree holder) for the loss occasioned by delay in
execution of decree. For that purpose, it is necessary to take into
consideration the factual position and condition of the suit premises.
9. Admittedly, the suit premises is a residential premises being
Room No. 4, Chawl No.1 of Parvathi Niwas (Nalawade Chawl),
Bandrekarwadi, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai-400 060. The monthly
rent of the suit premises was about Rs. 19.40 per month inclusive of
permitted increases.
10. The learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that,
the monthly compensation of the license premises should be
-- 4 of 6 --
Exh-10 -Appeal No. 6/2026 5 of 6 Order
Rs.15,000/-. He also relied upon the instances of leave and license
agreement of the premises which is in the vicinity of the suit
premises. The appellants have not produced on record any valuation
report or the instances of leave and license agreement or tenancy
agreement. However, the fair market rate shown by learned
Advocate for respondent appears to be at higher side. As per settled
principles of law, amount of compensation should be reasonable and
fair and it should not be excessive and exorbitant. The area of the
suit premises is less. The structure is also old.
11. In our considered opinion, considering the location,
area, user and other surrounding circumstances in respect of the suit
premises, we are of the considered opinion that the compensation of
Rs.5000/- would be just, sufficient and proper as compensation,
while granting stay to the impugned Judgment and decree.
Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the 'affirmative' and in answer
to point No.2, we proceed to pass following order.
O R D E R
1. The execution of judgment and decree passed by
the learned trial court in RAE Suit No.297 of 1999
dated 30.10.2025 is hereby stayed till the final
decision of the appeal subject to compliance of
following conditions:
(i) The appellants shall deposit interim compensation
@ Rs. 5,000/-( Rs. Five Thousand only) per month
towards use and occupation of the suit premises
from the date of decree i.e. 30.10.2025 till April,
2026 within the period of two Months from the
date of this order.
-- 5 of 6 --
Exh-10 -Appeal No. 6/2026 6 of 6 Order
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The appellants shall continue to deposit interim
monthly compensation @ Rs. 5,000/-( Rs. Five
Thousand only) per month from May, 2026
onwards till the disposal of the present appeal, on
or before 10th day of every succeeding month.
Additional Registrar of this court is hereby directed
to invest the amount of compensation as and when
deposited by the appellants in fixed Deposit for a
term of at least one year in any Nationalized Bank
immediately as per rules.
The appellants shall not create any third party
interest in the suit premises during pendency of
this appeal.
2. If, the appellants fail to comply with this order as
directed, then, stay granted by this order
automatically stands vacated.
I Agree,
(Ashish A. Ayachit) (Dipak R. Mali)
Addl. Chief Judge Judge,
C.R. No. 41 C.R. No. 41
Court of Small Causes,(B.B) Court of Small Causes,(B.B)
16.04.2026 16.04.2026
Order dictated on computer : 16.04.2026
Order checked & signed on : 16.04.2026
/home/steno41/Desktop/CR-41/2026/APRIL/ORDER/EXH-10-A1 appeal -6-2026 stay to execution of decree.odt Shubhada Shanbhag
-- 6 of 6 --