9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 pendency of the appeal filed by them chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/ 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.1,93,877/. He then submitted that during pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 to pay rent of Rs.49/ per sq. ft. It therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 charges would come to Rs.1,30,000/ per month to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
