Though ordinarily interference by this Court would not be warranted, particularly at an interlocutory stage, in the discretionary powers of the Appellate Court to arrive at the 'reasonable' figure in respect of the suit as a condition to the grant of stay to the execution of the decree of eviction, however, looking at the amount of litigation which is being generated on this issue, it would be necessary for this Court to consider if any criteria can be adopted so as to lay down some guidelines for the lower Courts in determining the amount so that the parties do not rush to this Court in every such matter complaining of such grave injustice which would have the effect of facing eviction without availing of their statutory right of appeal because of the fixing of such an amount of compensation/rent which would be excessive to the point of being oppressive. There, of course, cannot be any straight jacket or uniform formula laid down to determine as what can be termed as 'reasonable' and it would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Nevertheless, in view of the volume of cases between landlord and tenants, and consequently the number of cases being filed in this Court on this issue, it would be necessary to lay down some parameters on the basis of which this amount can be arrived at. It is to be noted that this 'reasonable' amount so fixed in most cases is an ad hoc amount in absence of any evidence being led in the matter and without any full fledged inquiry which the legislature has contemplated under Order XX, Rule 12 of the C.P.C. The courts therefore have to be circumspect in arriving at this figure as it could have the effect of the appellant- tenant being thrown out of the suit premises, inspite of having a fair chance of success in the appeal, which is but a continuation of the suit, as a result of his inability to pay the amount so fixed by the Court. It is to be noted that what the Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized and reiterated is the "reasonableness" of the amount.
14. In my opinion this would be a fit case to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to examine the issue of 'reasonableness' itself and lay down certain parameters or guidelines so as to avoid manifest injustice. A balance would have to be struck in weighing the equities so that there is no substantial loss to either party. The Court may, for example, consider examining (1) what percentage of the market value in terms of license fee, the premises in question can fetch could be termed as 'reasonable', (2) would this percentage be different in respect of residential premises vis-a-vis commercial premises, (3) which of the parties would be liable to pay the property taxes and other taxes/cess/charges, (this can go to more than 50% of the compensation for commercial premises in Mumbai), (4) whether the amount can be worked out on the basis of rateable value of the suit premises or number of times of the statutory rent or any other method of valuation, (5) how is the amount to be adjusted in case of inquiry under Order XX, Rule 12 of the CPC relating to mesne profits, (6) when can the amount awarded said to be unreasonable or oppressive or resulting in manifest injustice, (7) whether any report from an expert is necessary at that stage, (8) would this figure of 'reasonable' compensation be different in case of occupants who are trespassers or licensees who have lost protection of the rent control legislation or tenants holding over, etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition No. 3332 of 2008
Decided On: 16.06.2008
Marjorie Passanah and Anr. Vs. Mumtaz Iqbal Shaikh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.A. Sayed, J.
Citation:2009(1) MHLJ 972
