2018 (3) TMI 1999

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e petitioners : Shri N. H. Shams, Advocate for petitioners. For the respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Shri C. A. Anthony, Advocate Oral Judgment  Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners who are the original plaintiffs are aggrieved by order passed by the first Appellate Court on the application for stay that was moved by the respondents during p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmining the occupation charges at Rs.1,00,000/­ per month. According to him, in the light of judgment of this Court in Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 134 the petitioners are entitled to higher occupation charges. In that regard he submitted that by calculating the percentage of the value of the property, the occupation charges would come to Rs.1,93,8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that the evidence on record did not justify grant of higher occupation charges. 5. Heard the respective counsel. The suit for possession had been decreed by the trial Court and the appeal challenging the same is pending before the Appellate Court. The trial Court while deciding point Nos.3 and 4 has referred to exchange of communications between the parties in which the respondents offerred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come to Rs.1,93,877/­, by taking a prima facie view of the matter I feel the Appellate Court ought to have granted higher amount of occupation charges to be paid by the respondents. Thus taking an overall view of the matter and in the light of the offer made at Exhibit­50 as well as reply filed on behalf of the petitioners to the stay application, the reasonable amount of occupation charge....