Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 05.11.2020 in Civil Revision Application No 357 of 2017 by which while admitting the revision application preferred by the contesting respondents herein – original revisionists against the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai and while staying the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench, the High Court has directed the respondent
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
No 1 – original revisionist to deposit Rs.
According to the original plaintiffs – lessors, on or about 22.01.1968, after the death of the original lessor, his legal heirs entered into a supplementary indenture of lease permitting the original lessee to demolish the old structures standing on the property and erect new structures. 3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein – Sumer Corporation, respondent No 19 before the High Court is claiming to have right, title and interest in the suit property (lease) pursuant to the deed of conveyance executed in the year 2008 for a sale consideration of Rs.
The High Court has further directed the original revisionist to furnish a security for the arrears of compensation payable from 02.04.2018 and till the date of the impugned order and a sum of Rs.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a very serious error in directing the original revisionist to deposit the compensation @
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
Rs.
It is submitted that the High Court has determined the monthly compensation by considering the amount paid by the appellant for the purchase of the property in question, i.e., Rs. It is submitted that as per the Valuation Report of Mr. It is submitted that as per the Valuation Report of Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. No 1- original revisionist has while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the power of the Appellate Court to award the compensation while staying the decree of eviction is not disputed. Having heard the learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone though the impugned order passed by the High Court determining the monthly compensation @ If the approach adopted by the High Court is accepted and/or approved, in a given case, it may happen that the lessor might have purchased the property forty years back and/or long back and if the said approach is considered and thereafter the monthly compensation is determined, the same cannot be said to be a reasonable compensation.
1 As observed and held by this Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. 5.50 cores and thereafter, considering estimated return @ 6.5% per annum, the High Court has determined/awarded the compensation for use and occupation of the premises by the tenant @
Rs.
Case Title: SUMER CORPORATION Vs. VIJAY ANANT GANGAN (2022 INSC 1188)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007774-007774 / 2022
