Appellate court modifies stay order, respondent to pay occupation charges.

The writ petition was partly allowed. The appellate court's order granting stay of eviction decree was modified, requiring the respondent to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month as occupation charges until the appeal's decision. The respondent was directed to deposit arrears within three months, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the appellate court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellate court's order granting stay of eviction decree.
2. Reasonableness of the occupation charges fixed by the appellate court during the pendency of the appeal.
3. Consideration of market rent and relevant material in determining occupation charges.
4. Impact of the age and condition of the building on occupation charges.
5. Need for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the appellate court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the appellate court's order granting stay of eviction decree:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 27.08.2018 by the District Judge, Nagpur, which granted a stay on the eviction decree on the condition that the respondent pays Rs.10,000/- per month as occupation charges. The petitioners argued that this amount was unreasonably low considering the market rent of similar properties in the same building.

2. Reasonableness of the occupation charges fixed by the appellate court during the pendency of the appeal:
The petitioners contended that Rs.10,000/- per month was significantly lower than the market rent, which, based on the ready reckoner and recent lease deeds, ranged between Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The appellate court's fixation of Rs.10,000/- was argued to be without basis and not reflective of the prevalent market conditions.

3. Consideration of market rent and relevant material in determining occupation charges:
The court emphasized that the appellate court must impose conditions based on market conditions when granting a stay of an eviction decree. Relevant material such as ready reckoner, lease deeds, and recent rent agreements should be considered. The appellate court failed to consider the ready reckoner and other relevant material provided by the petitioners, making the order erroneous.

4. Impact of the age and condition of the building on occupation charges:
The respondent argued that the building was over 50 years old and the nature of their business did not generate sufficient income to pay higher occupation charges. The court acknowledged the age of the building but still found that Rs.10,000/- per month was unreasonably low. After considering the ready reckoner and the age of the building, the court determined a reasonable occupation charge to be Rs.1,00,000/- per month.

5. Need for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the appellate court:
The court directed the appellate court to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, recognizing the importance of resolving the matter swiftly to determine the validity of the eviction decree on merits.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was partly allowed. The impugned order was modified to require the respondent to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month as occupation charges from the date of the trial court's judgment until the appeal's decision. The respondent was directed to deposit arrears within three months. The appellate court was expected to expedite the hearing and disposal of the appeal.

---