JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. By order dtd. 2/4/2018, the above Civil Revision Application was admitted. By order dtd. 5/11/2020, a learned Single Judge fied monthly compensation to be deposited by the Applicants at the rate of Rs.2,50,000.00 per month as a condition of stay of the eviction decree during pendency of the Civil Revision Application. The relevant portion of said order dtd. 5/11/2020 reads as under : "13. The only legitimate basis for working out interim compensation in our case appears to be the actual price paid for the suit property (i.e. essentially the land) by Respondent No.19. Respondent No.19 has acquired reversionary right of the lessors in the suit property for a sum of Rs.5.50 crores. Evidently, this has been a concrete deal at arms length between men of commerce; it does take into account or, at any rate, must be presumed to have taken into account, all aspects arising out of the lessee's right to the eiisting structure at the eipiry of the lease. It may safely, at least for our purposes, which, as we have seen above, in any event, involve a certain ad-hocism, be taken as the basis for working out a fair interim compensation. Indeed, it is even Mr. Naidu's submission that interim compensation may be premised on this valuation. In his submission, Mr Naidu has worked out fair return of Rs.2,56,654.00 per month (for 4354 sq. yds., i.e. eicluding the land appurtenant and below the two chawl like structures) by estimating return at 6.5 per cent per annum on the price paid by Respondent No.19 (Rs.5.50 crores). Mr. Naidu, however, terms this amount of Rs.2,56,654.00 to be eiorbitant, without telling us why. (He probably contends so in the light of the judgments of Atma Ram Properties and Previn Govind Sharma, (supra.) Mr. Naidu suggests 50 per cent of this amount (i.e. Rs.1,28,327.00 per month) as a fair return on investment for fiing interim compensation. 14. There is no basis for reducing the amount of fair return to 50 per cent as suggested by Mr. Naidu. The amount is not eiorbitant per se and cannot be said to be so on the basis of the cases of Atma Ram Properties and Previn Govind Sharma. As I have noted above, the multipliers in Atma Ram Properties and Previn Govind Sharma are not benchmarks to be used as precedents for fiing compensation generally. Naidu. The amount is not eiorbitant per se and cannot be said to be so on the basis of the cases of Atma Ram Properties and Previn Govind Sharma. As I have noted above, the multipliers in Atma Ram Properties and Previn Govind Sharma are not benchmarks to be used as precedents for fiing compensation generally. In the peculiar facts of our case, it is this return (Rs.2,56,654.00 per month) which may be termed as a fair return on investment, which the eventually successful party may be said to have lost as a result of the stay on eviction and which may be taken as a reasonable compensation to be fied during the pendency of the CRA as a condition of the stay. There may, at best, be a case for rounding it off to Rs.2,50,000.00 per month. 15. Accordingly, reasonable monthly compensation as a condition of stay in terms of prayer clause (ii) of the CRA is fied at Rs.2,50,000.00. The Applicant shall furnish a security for the arrears of compensation payable from 2/4/2018 till date in the sum of Rs.77.50 lacs by deposit of a fied deposit receipt of like amount endorsed in favour of the Registrar General of this Court with intimation to the issuing bank. Such deposit shall be made on or before 10/12/2020. Compensation payable with effect from today shall be deposited in court on or before 10 day of each succeeding month beginning from December 2020. This amount shall be invested by the Registrar General in Fiied Deposits of nationalized bank and shall abide by further orders to be passed in the CRA. Subject to deposit of FDR and monthly deposits of Rs.2,50,000.00 as ordered above, ad-interim stay of the decree of eviction passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai operating in the CRA is confrmed as interim relief pending hearing and fnal disposal of the CRA." (Emphasis added) 2. The learned Single Judge has relied on the said transaction of reversionary rights which is of the year 2008. The eviction decree is dtd. 4/5/2017. Thus the relevant date for determination of the compensation is 4/5/2017. 3. The above referred order dtd. 5/11/2020 of learned Single Judge was challenged before the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 7774 of 2022. The Supreme Court by order dtd. 9/11/2022 set aside order dtd. 5/11/2020 of learned Single Judge. The eviction decree is dtd. 4/5/2017. Thus the relevant date for determination of the compensation is 4/5/2017. 3. The above referred order dtd. 5/11/2020 of learned Single Judge was challenged before the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 7774 of 2022. The Supreme Court by order dtd. 9/11/2022 set aside order dtd. 5/11/2020 of learned Single Judge. In paragraph 7 of the said order, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that, the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge is not a sound principle of law to form the basis for determining the compensation in this case. The Supreme Court observed that in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705 . it has been held that, from the date of decree of eviction, the tenant is liable to pay mense profts or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of decree. The Supreme Court also observed that in the decision of State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Super Mai International Private Limited and Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 772 . it has been held that in fiing the amount subject to payment which the eiecution of the order/decree is stayed, the Court would eiercise restraint and would not fi any eicessive, fanciful or punitive amount. It has been observed that while staying the eviction decree, the Court can direct the tenant to pay the compensation for use and occupation of the tenancy premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn the rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The Supreme Court has also observed that in the present case, the learned Single Judge has not done that eiercise and has determined the compensation considering the market value/value at which original Respondent No.19 acquired the rights of the suit property for a sum of Rs.5.50 Crores and thereafter considering estimated return @ 6.5% per annum fied the compensation amount. The Supreme Court has also observed that in the present case, the learned Single Judge has not done that eiercise and has determined the compensation considering the market value/value at which original Respondent No.19 acquired the rights of the suit property for a sum of Rs.5.50 Crores and thereafter considering estimated return @ 6.5% per annum fied the compensation amount. It has been observed that the High Court was required to undertake eiercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The Supreme Court set aside, the said order dtd. 5/11/2020 of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Revision Application No. 357 of 2017 and the matter is remanded back to the High Court to determine the compensation for the use and occupation of the premises in question, by the tenant/lessee, taking into consideration the observations made in the order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has also allowed the parties to lead evidence with respect to the aspect regarding the rate at which the landlord/lessor, had been able to let out the premises and earn the rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to complete the said eiercise within sii months from the date of the receipt of the order. The Supreme Court further directed that till a fresh decision on remand is taken by the High Court by way of interim arrangement and subject to further decision, that may be taken by the High Court, the Supreme Court directed the Applicants to deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 per month from the date of passing of the eviction decree. The Supreme Court also clarifed that said deposit shall be subject to the fnal decision/ determination of compensation on record by the High Court. It is not in dispute that the said amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 per month is deposited in this Court from the date of eviction decree as per the direction of the Supreme Court. 4. I have heard Mr. Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants, Mr. Vivek Kantawala, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.19 and Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 10 from time to time. 4. I have heard Mr. Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants, Mr. Vivek Kantawala, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.19 and Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 10 from time to time. This order is dictated in open Court on various dates and the dictation is completed today. 5. Mr. Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants, raised following contentions:- (i) By the indenture of lease dtd. 16/8/1949 read with Supplementary lease deed dtd. 22/1/1968, what was leased out was open plot of land admeasuring 5054 sq. yards equivalent to 4225.78 sq. mtrs. alongwith two structures standing thereon. The said structures are two chawl strcutures, each chawl consisting of 5 shops facing the road and 5 rooms behind the shops. Thus old structures are 10 shops and 10 rooms. By lease deed of 1949, right was granted to the Applicants i.e. lessee to erect a permanent building in the open space at the cost of not less than Rs.1,00,000.00. On eipiry or termination of lease, liberty is granted to the Lessor to buy the building constructed by the lessee at a valuation to be fied as provided. As per Clause 9, it is the responsibility of the lessee to maintain and carry out all necessary repairs including the tenanted shops and rooms. As per Clause 19, right of pre-emption is reserved in favour of lessee to sell the demised premises. As per Clause 1 of the 1968 lease deed, the building constructed shall at all times be the ownership properties of the lessee alone. On the basis of various clauses of lease deed of 1968 and 1949, it is contended that the building which is standing on the plot is belonging to the Applicant and what has been leased out is only the plot. Lessee had at its own cost constructed the building i.e. ground plus four foors on the said plot of land called as "Garment House" and therefore the lessee has right to sell Garment House on eipiration or termination of the lease. The said Garment House is the eiclusive property of the lessee. (ii) He submitted that, inspite of eviction decree, ownership of Garment House is with the Applicants, which is a valuable right. He submitted that, the said right is independent of eviction decree and the said right has been admitted by both Respondent No. 10 as well as Respondent No.19. The said Garment House is the eiclusive property of the lessee. (ii) He submitted that, inspite of eviction decree, ownership of Garment House is with the Applicants, which is a valuable right. He submitted that, the said right is independent of eviction decree and the said right has been admitted by both Respondent No. 10 as well as Respondent No.19. To substantiate his contention, he relied on Suit No.1633 of 2016 fled by Respondent No. 10 against the Applicant seeking specifc performance of the alleged oral contract to purchase Garment House. Therefore, it is his contention that, Respondent No. 10 has acknowledged that the effect of various terms and conditions of the lease deed is that the demised premises are separate and independent from the ownership of the Garment House vesting with the Applicant. Therefore, it is his contention that, while arriving at the valuation of Garment House for the purpose of compensation, only the land is required to be valued and taken into consideration and not value of the building standing thereon, i.e. Garment House. He also relied on certain correspondences entered with Respondent No. 19 to contend that, even the Respondent No.19 has also acknowledged said right of the Applicant. He, therefore, submitted that, while fiing the reasonable compensation, only value of the land be required to be taken into consideration and not the value of the building Garment House. He submitted that, considering the present valuation of the Garment House, the reasonable compensation be determined by giving 15% reduction and the compensation that may be payable as on the date of decree as arrived at by increasing land rate as set out in the affdavit of evidence. He submitted that, till date, the Applicant is paying all taies, duties and cess of the entire premises and, therefore, that factor also be taken into consideration. (iii) The Respondent Nos. 10 and 19 are currently in possession, occupation and use of 10 shops, 10 rooms which were attorned to the lessee. Consequently, area of 551 sq. mtrs. out of demised premises are in possession, occupation and use of Respondent Nos. 10 and 19, which has to be eicluded while determining the compensation. (iv) There is no prayer for mesne proft in the plaint and therefore no amount is required to be directed to be deposited as compensation pending appeal/ revision to secure a claim for mesne proft. out of demised premises are in possession, occupation and use of Respondent Nos. 10 and 19, which has to be eicluded while determining the compensation. (iv) There is no prayer for mesne proft in the plaint and therefore no amount is required to be directed to be deposited as compensation pending appeal/ revision to secure a claim for mesne proft. He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ganapati Madhav Sawant (Dead) thru' his LRs Vs. Dattu Madhav Sawant, (2008) 3 SCC 183 . and in the matter of Mohemmed Amin V. Vakil Ahmad, AIR 1952 SC 358 . to substantiate the said contention. According to him, even, if, Civil Revision Application is dismissed then also, the Respondents are not entitled to mesne proft and therefore, there is no question of depositing any compensation. Therefore, the request of the Respondents to fi compensation pending Civil Revision Application be rejected. (v) According to the Applicants, a reasonable compensation which the Applicants can be directed to be paid is Rs.6,40,000.00 per month. He relied on paragraphs 67 to 77 of the Affdavit of evidence dtd. 7/1/2023 to substantiate the said contention. He submitted that, certain amounts i.e. about 40% are required to be deducted from the said amount of Rs.6,40,000.00 per month. As the lessee has a frst right to acquire the demised premises from the lessor i.e. right of pre-emption, the compensation ought to be fied by equitable reduction of 40% on the compensation that may be payable as on date of decree on the basis of increase in land rate and therefore, Rs.3,84,000.00 per month be fied as a reasonable compensation. (vi) It is the alternative submission of the Applicants that, a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 which has been directed to be deposited be continued to be deposited till fnal disposal of the Civil Revision Application. (vii) It is also submitted by Mr. (vi) It is the alternative submission of the Applicants that, a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 which has been directed to be deposited be continued to be deposited till fnal disposal of the Civil Revision Application. (vii) It is also submitted by Mr. Naidu that, considering the mandate of Order 41, Rule 5, a decree of eviction can be stayed on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court and as said Garment House is sole ownership property of the lessee and lessee is entitled to sell Garment House at any point of time even on termination or determination of the lease, it has a monetary value and therefore, the said Garment House can be kept as security towards compensation that may be payable by the Applicant and charge can be created on the net sale proceeds of Garment House for payment of compensation on fnal disposal of the Civil Revision Application. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kantawala, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 19 raised following submissions : i. The tenant against whom decree of eviction is passed and the eiecution of the said decree is stayed by the higher Court, then in such a situation, status of occupancy of such tenant is occupation of the premises after termination of tenancy and therefore, tenant has to deposit as a condition of stay monthly rent which the landlord would fetch if the premises are vacated and let out. ii. He submitted that the Respondent No. 19 has produced leave and licence agreement of the premises which is barely 200 mtrs away from the suit property and in that case premises were given on leave and licence at the rate of Rs.275.04 per sq. feet. He submitted that by such analogy an amount of Rs.1,25,26,844.04 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty Sii Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Four and Four Paise Only) is payable by way of interim compensation by the tenant. However, he submitted that the suit property being 45,486 sq. feet cannot be able to fetch the same rent as the suit premises are larger in nature and therefore reasonable reduction is permissible. iii. The suit property is abutting the main road. There is accessible Bus/Taii service available to commute, the property is approachable through the Mahalaimi Railway Station and various other factors which would justify the amount as above payable. iv. iii. The suit property is abutting the main road. There is accessible Bus/Taii service available to commute, the property is approachable through the Mahalaimi Railway Station and various other factors which would justify the amount as above payable. iv. He submitted that the decree of eviction has been passed regarding entire suit property and therefore, while fiing the compensation, it will have to be done on the land as well as building including said Garment House. v. The tenant's case of Rs.2,50,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) per month and thereafter improved to Rs.6,40,000.00 (Rupees Sii Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) per month do not remotely complement with the principles of Order XLI Rule 5 and do not even remotely quantify the instances of Leave and Licence demonstrated in the Affdavit fled on behalf of the Respondent No.19. vi. He submitted that ready reckoner as relied by the Applicants cannot be relied on for arriving at the amount for determination of compensation. He submitted that various contentions raised regarding tenure of lease conditions, Garment Houses and right of pre-emption are totally irrelevant as the scope of present enquiry is very limited as directed in the remand order by the Supreme Court. He submitted that the purchase of reversionary rights by Respondent No.19 and at what rate are totally irrelevant for the present enquiry. He submitted that as the eviction decree is passed with respect to entire suit property, Garment House building cannot be given as security. As far as the contention that 551 sq. mtrs. to be eicluded, it is his submission that as the tenant is claiming stay of entire decree, said 551 sq. mtrs. cannot be eicluded. 7. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.10 also raised similar submissions as raised on behalf of the Respondent No. 19 and also raised following additional contentions:- i. He submitted that in the affdavits, the Respondent No.10 has relied on certain leave and license agreements and valuation report dtd. 11/12/2022 of valuer - Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd. On the basis of said valuation report, it is his contention that following can be the reasonable compensation. ii. He also submitted that although it is the contention of Mr. 11/12/2022 of valuer - Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd. On the basis of said valuation report, it is his contention that following can be the reasonable compensation. ii. He also submitted that although it is the contention of Mr. Naidu that while arriving at the compensation only land be taken into consideration, however, he pointed out the prayers in the plaint and description of the suit premises and submitted that the description of the suit premises includes dwelling houses and tenements. Therefore, it is his contention that the decree is passed with respect to entire property and therefore land as well as building be taken into consideration. iii. As far as the contention regarding right of pre-emption, he submitted that the same is totally irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the compensation while considering the ad-interim relief under Order 41, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. iv. He submitted that hardship which is caused to the landlord is required to be taken into consideration and therefore, appropriate orders in terms of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) be passed. 8. Thus, what is to be decided in the present case is the fair rent which the landlord will be able to get in case if he gets the possession of the suit premises pursuant to the eviction decree, eiecution of which is stayed and if he lets out the same to the third person. 9. Before considering the said question, it is necessary to set out the affdavits of respective parties on the point of determination of the monthly compensation which the Applicants can be directed to pay as a condition of stay of the eviction decree. The respective parties have fled said Affdavits/Replies/ Rejoinders etc. before the Supreme Court order and also after the order of the Supreme Court by which, order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded back to this Court for fresh decision with respect to the determination of reasonable monthly compensation which the Applicants can be directed to deposit. 10. The gist of Affdavits/Replies/Rejoinders etc. fled by the respective parties before the remand of the matter by the Supreme Court are set out hereinbelow. 10.1 Respondent No.19 fled affdavit-in-reply dtd. 13/8/2018 and in paragraph No.2 set out the description of the suit property. 10. The gist of Affdavits/Replies/Rejoinders etc. fled by the respective parties before the remand of the matter by the Supreme Court are set out hereinbelow. 10.1 Respondent No.19 fled affdavit-in-reply dtd. 13/8/2018 and in paragraph No.2 set out the description of the suit property. It is the contention of Respondent No.19 that, they are the owners of the suit property and acquired the same under the Deed of Conveyance dtd. 19/3/2008. Contentions regarding market rate are raised in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 of the said affdavit dtd. 13/8/2018. It has been brought on record that the said property is situated in the prime locality of Worli, opposite the offce of the Charity Commissioner. The reference is made to the valuation report of 'Khandekar, Architects and Surveyors' which has been produced at 'Eih.A' to the said Affdavit. Although the said Valuation Report is not dated the same, it states that the valuer has inspected the suit property on 12/6/2018. According to said valuation report, the total monthly rent of the suit property would be Rs.1,59,93,245.00. In the said affdavit, it has been stated that the said amount of Rs.1,59,93,245.00 be directed to be paid with effect from 4/5/2017 i.e. date of the eviction decree passed by the Appellate Court. 10.2 The Respondent No.10 fled Affdavit dtd. 29/8/2018. In the said affdavit, the suit property is set out in paragraph No.5(a). It has been stated that two structures referred in the description of the property are comprised of 10 shops (all shops abutting on the main road i.e. Dr. Annie Besant Road) and 10 rooms, all are occupied by different parties and income is generated out of this 10 shops and 10 rooms. The said building Garment House is described in paragraph 5(c)(i) and it is stated that the same is a commercial building comprising of ground and four upper foors, in aggregate admeasuring 1,16,114.20 sq.ft. equivalent to 10,791.28 sq. mtrs. It is further mentioned that, in the said locality, Leave and License charges are varying between Rs.170.00 to Rs.200.00 per sq. ft. per month. The Leave and License agreement dtd. 6/6/2017 of premises admeasuring 1,650 sq. ft. located on the 3rd foor of a building known as "Nishuvi", situated at 75, Dr. Annie Besant road, Mumbai is produced at Eihibit-1. It has been contended that the said Garment House will fetch rent of Rs.170.00 to 200/- per sq. ft. ft. per month. The Leave and License agreement dtd. 6/6/2017 of premises admeasuring 1,650 sq. ft. located on the 3rd foor of a building known as "Nishuvi", situated at 75, Dr. Annie Besant road, Mumbai is produced at Eihibit-1. It has been contended that the said Garment House will fetch rent of Rs.170.00 to 200/- per sq. ft. Accordingly, it is contended that for said Garment House the compensation be fied between Rs.1,97,39,414.00 to Rs.2,32,22,840.00 per sq. ft. per month. In paragraph No. 5 (ii)(a) and (b), it is contended that by taking method of nominal return on the value of Garment House i.e. 6.75% per annum reasonable compensation be fied at Rs.24,92,62,611.00 per annum i.e. Rs.2,07,71,884.25 per month which is equivalent to Rs.178.89 per sq.ft. per month. In paragraph no.5(c), (d) certain sale instances in locality were relied on and it is contended that rate of compensation on the basis of said transactions is equivalent to Rs.199.96 per sq.ft. per month and therefore, monthly compensation on that basis is claimed as that of Rs.2,32,19,211.43. Certain other contentions were also raised in the said affdavit-in-reply, however, presently the said contentions are not relevant. 10.3 The Applicants fled rejoinder dtd. 24/9/2018 to the affdavit-in-reply of Respondent No.10. In the rejoinder, it has been contended that the Suit property is not properly described in the Affdavit. It is contented that the suit property is described in Eih.-A to the plaint being R.A.E. and R. Suit No.720/2334 of 1988 fled before the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. It is contended that the Garment House cannot be considered as the suit property. It is contended that the said 10 shops and 10 rooms are in possession of the Respondents. Certain clauses of Deed of Conveyance dtd. 7/3/2008 eiecuted by Respondent No.10 were relied. Certain clauses of the Lease Deed dtd. 16/8/1949 particularly clause No.19 was relied on to substantiate the contentions that right is created in favour of the Applicants of the frst option to purchase the land as well as the premises. It is contended that the Respondent No.10 has not acquired right, title and interest with respect to building known as "Garment House" and in any case, decree of eviction does not pertain to the Garment House and the same only pertains to the land and at the most regarding said two chawls comprising 10 shops and 10 rooms. It is contended that the Respondent No.10 has not acquired right, title and interest with respect to building known as "Garment House" and in any case, decree of eviction does not pertain to the Garment House and the same only pertains to the land and at the most regarding said two chawls comprising 10 shops and 10 rooms. Clause No.4 of Lease Deed dtd. 16/8/1949 was relied on to contend that unfettered right has been given to the Lessee to construct on ownership basis, a structure with full right to deal with it without permission of the Lessor. Clause No.5 of the Lease Deed is also relied on which provides that lessor shall buy on eipiration or determination of the lease, the newly erected structure by the Lessee at a valuation to be fied by the respective Architect of the parties and in case of difference then at the valuation to be fied by an umpire to be nominated by the said architects. Supplementary Lease Agreement dtd. 22/1/1968 was also relied. On the basis of supplementary lease Agreement it has been contended that the Lessee had full, complete and absolute right, title and interest in the building which he was permitted to construct under the Lease Deed. It has been contended that by eiercising the right reserved in the Lease Deed, the Lessee constructed a multi storied building named as Garment House. Relying on various terms and conditions of Supplementary Lease Agreement dtd. 22/1/1968, it is contended that, the construction so made shall be the property of the Lessee alone. Reliance is also placed on Clauses 4, 5, 8 and 11 of the Supplementary Lease Agreement. The Applicants also raised various contentions in the said Rejoinder on merits including the locus of the Respondents to seek compensation. 10.4 The Applicants also fled rejoinder dtd. 24/9/2018 to the affdavit-in-reply of Respondent No.19. In the said rejoinder, on the basis of terms and conditions of various Deeds and certain negotiations between the parties, it is contended that, Respondent No.19 has not acquired any right, title and interest in the building i.e. Garment House and it is contended that the Applicants are the owners of the said Garment House. 10.5 Respondent No.19 also fled additional affdavit in reply on 1/7/2019. 10.5 Respondent No.19 also fled additional affdavit in reply on 1/7/2019. By the said additional affdavit in reply valuation report of Harshad S. Maniar, Chartered Engineer, Surveyor and registered estate valuer was produced at Eihibit-A. As per the said valuation report, monthly compensation was Rs.67,76,038.23 for the land admeasuring 4225.78 sq. mtrs. at the rate of Rs.1603.50 sq.mtr. p.m. However, it is signifcant to note that while arriving at such rate, cost of construction, builder's proft etc. are also taken into consideration. 11. As set out hereinabove, the learned Single Judge determined Rs.2,50,000.00 as a fair compensation and the Supreme Court has set aside the said order and remanded back the same to the High Court for determining the reasonable monthly compensation which is directed to be deposited by the Applicants. 12. The gist of Affdavits/Replies/Rejoinders, etc. fled by the respective parties after the remand of the matter by the Supreme Court are set out herein below : 12.1 The Respondent No.19 fled affdavit dtd. 9/12/2022. To the said affdavit dtd. 9/12/2022, Respondent No.19 has anneied Indei-II of three leave and license agreement of the shop premises which are nearby to the suit premises. On the basis of those three leave and license agreements, it is the contention of Respondent No.19 that, Rs.83,40,312.96, Rs.1,25,26,844.4 or Rs.1,51,62,303.2 can be the rent/compensation per month. 12.2 Respondent No.10 fled affdavit dtd. 23/12/2022. It is the contention of Respondent No.10 that, the property in question is situated at one of the prime locality of Mumbai i.e. opposite to offce of the learned Charity Commissioner on the main Dr. Annie Besant Road. Respondent No.10 has set out description of the suit property by including the Garment House and the two structures standing thereon as part of the suit property. It is the contention of Respondent No.10 that the two structures compromising of 10 shops and 10 rooms are occupied by different parties and there is income generated from the said 10 shops and 10 rooms. To the said affdavit of Respondent No.10, Valuation Report of "Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd." was anneied. On the basis of said valuation report, it is the contention of Respondent No.10 that, royalty payment per month is Rs.92,98,000.00 for the year 2017, Rs.1,71,69,000.00 for the year 2019 and Rs.1,72,75,000.00 for the year 2022. To the said affdavit of Respondent No.10, Valuation Report of "Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd." was anneied. On the basis of said valuation report, it is the contention of Respondent No.10 that, royalty payment per month is Rs.92,98,000.00 for the year 2017, Rs.1,71,69,000.00 for the year 2019 and Rs.1,72,75,000.00 for the year 2022. 12.3 The Applicants have fled Affdavit in lieu of Eiaminationin- chief and Rejoinder to the aforesaid Affdavits of the Respondents dtd. 7/1/2023. In the said affdavit fled by the Applicants, various contentions are raised including contention regarding Indenture of lease deed dtd. 16/8/1949, supplementary lease deed dtd. 22/1/1968 and on the basis of various clauses of the said deeds, it is contended that, Garment House is not the part of the suit premises. It is the contention raised in the affdavit that demised premises as per the suit premises is anneied at Eih.-A to the plaint. As far as Garment House is concerned, specifc contention raised is that the Garment House is not the demised premises and, therefore, not the suit property. It is specifcally contended that the land admeasuring 5054 sq. yards equivalent to 4225 sq. mtrs. and the two chawl like structures having 10 shops and 10 rooms are the demised premises. Certain contentions are also raised regarding merits of the case. It is also contended that, Respondent No. 19 and the Respondent No. 10 are in possession of the said 10 shops and 10 rooms. It is stated that, therefore, the demised premises in possession of Applicants admeasures only 3674 sq. mtrs. As far as compensation of the suit premise is concerned, it is contended that, Rs.2,50,000.00 per month fied by the learned Single Judge by order dtd. 5/11/2020 be maintained. It is further contended that, Garment House building be treated as security for such compensation. It is contended that, the Applicants are administering the estate of the deceased and huge eipenses are required for the same which the Applicants are paying by the estate. Certain contentions are raised regarding locus of Respondent Nos.10 and 19. However, this Court is not concerned with the said contention as the present inquiry is only with respect to the determination of the market rate of the suit premises. Certain contentions are raised regarding locus of Respondent Nos.10 and 19. However, this Court is not concerned with the said contention as the present inquiry is only with respect to the determination of the market rate of the suit premises. From paragraph Nos.67 to 79 certain calculations are set out and on the basis of that, it is tried to be contended that, Rs.6,40,000.00 per month is the fair return on the value of the said property and certain deductions are required and, therefore, it is contended that, Rs.3,84,000.00 per month is the appropriate amount of compensation. It is specifcally contended that, valuation of Respondent Nos.10 and 19 has to be discarded because it is based on valuation or rental income which the Garment House would fetch. As far as valuation report submitted on behalf of Respondent No.10 and Respondent No.19 are concerned, it is submitted that, both the valuation method suggested by either reports are misconceived as the valuation reports are based on the valuation of the Garment House. 13. In view of the contentions raised in pleadings of the respective parties as contained in the respective Affdavits/ Replies/Rejoinders and in the light of submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as noted in earlier part of this order, following points are required to be considered by this Court while determining the fair and reasonable monthly compensation which can be directed to be deposited by the Applicants during the pendency of the Civil Revision Application. (i) Whether only land is required to be taken into consideration or land and building including said Garment House is required to be taken into consideration while arriving at fair and reasonable monthly compensation which can be directed to be deposited by the Applicants during the pendency of the Civil Revision Application ? (ii) What is the effect of not seeking prayer of mesne profts in the plaint and in view of that is it not necessary to direct deposit of compensation per month as condition of stay to eviction decree ? (iii) Whether the contention of the Applicants that 10 rooms and 10 shops are not in possession of the Applicants can be taken into consideration while arriving at the monthly compensation ? (iv) What is the reasonable monthly compensation which can be directed to be deposited per month by the Applicants as condition of stay of eviction decree ? (iii) Whether the contention of the Applicants that 10 rooms and 10 shops are not in possession of the Applicants can be taken into consideration while arriving at the monthly compensation ? (iv) What is the reasonable monthly compensation which can be directed to be deposited per month by the Applicants as condition of stay of eviction decree ? (v) Whether building "Garment House" can be kept as security for deposit of such compensation ? (vi) Whether the Applicants can be allowed to furnish fi deposit receipts as security for such compensation? 14. First Point :- Whether only land is required to be taken into consideration or land and building including said Garment House is required to be taken into consideration while arriving at fair and reasonable monthly compensation which can be directed to be deposited by the Applicants during the pendency of the Civil Revision Application ? 14.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 i.e. Plaintiffs fled R.A.E. Suit No. 720/2334 of 1988 inter alia against the Applicants seeking eviction on the ground of subletting, arrears of standard rate and permitted increases and non-user. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by Judgment and Decree dtd. 25/6/2004. The Appeal which has been fled by the Respondents i.e. Original Plaintiffs was allowed and the suit was decreed by directing Defendants to handover the possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs as described in Schedule-A. The decree was passed on the ground of subletting and non-user by the judgment and decree dtd. 4/5/2017 passed by the Appellate Court of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The operative portion of the decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- "ORDER 1) Appeal is allowed with costs. 2) The judgment and decree passed by the trial court in R.A.E. and R Suit No.720/2334 of 1988 is set aside and in its place, the following order is substituted. a) Suit is decreed with costs. b) Defendants are hereby directed to hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs as described in Schedule 'A' within three months from today. a) Suit is decreed with costs. b) Defendants are hereby directed to hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs as described in Schedule 'A' within three months from today. 3) Decree be drawn up accordingly." (Emphasis added) 14.2 It is very important to note that the eviction decree is passed with respect to the suit premises as described in Schedule-A. The said Schedule-A reads as under : "Ei-'A' THE SCHEDULE ABOVE REFERRED TO : All that piece or parcel of Foras Land or ground known as "Dorachi Khar" with the messauge, tenements or dwelling houses standing thereon, situate lying and being at Worli in the city of Bombay in the Registration sub-district of Bombay containing by admeasurement 5054 square yards or there abouts and registered in the books of the Collector of Land Revenue under Old Nos. 1(Part) and 3(Part) New Nos. A/12763 and A/12772 New Survey No.1A and 2/3366 Collector's Rent Roll No.5667 and Cadestral Survey No.1/123 Lower Parel Division and assessed by the Bombay Municipality under 'G' Ward Nos.66(1) 66(1A), 66(1B), 66(1C), 66(1D) New Street Nos. 66, 37-37A, 39-39A, 41-41A, 43, 45 and 35 Dr. Annie Besant Road and bounded as follows, that is to say on or towards the East by C.S. Nos.2/122, 1/22, 122, 3/47 and 124 Lower Parel Division on or towards the West by a road formerly known as the Love Grove Road and known as Dr. Annie Besant Road on or towards the North by C.S. No.2/123 and on or towards the South by C.S. No.123 Lower Parel Division." (Emphasis added) 14.3 Thus it is clear that the eviction decree has been passed with respect to the land admeasuring about 5054 sq. yards and messauge, tenement or dwelling houses standing thereon. 14.4 In Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it has been held that, while passing order of stay under Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the Appellant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in eiecution of decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being dismissed. However, it is clarifed that such terms shall be reasonable. However, it is clarifed that such terms shall be reasonable. In the conteit of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it has been observed that the tenancy of the tenant terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction and, with effect from that date, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profts or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. Therefore, the scope of present inquiry is the amount which the tenant is liable to pay as compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rent at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. 14.5 Thus, the relevant date is the date on which the Appellate Court passed the eviction decree i.e. 4/5/2017 and the same will have to be with respect to the suit premises. The suit premises as described in Schedule-A is all that peace or parcel of Foras Land or ground known as "Dorachi Khar", the meassauges, tenements or dwelling houses standing on, the land admeasuring 5054 square yards. Now, the only controversy is whether the tenements or dwelling houses standing thereon includes the Garment House. There is no dispute that the land below the Garment House is the suit property. It is admitted position that, the suit premises was leased on 16/8/1949 and, thereafter, supplementary lease deed was eiecuted on 22/1/1968. The clause Nos.1, 4, 5, 7 and 19 of the said lease deed dtd. 16/8/1949 are relevant and the same read as under: "1. The Lessor shall let and the Lessee shall take on lease the said land hereditaments and premises for a period of thirty years from the 1st day of October 1949 at a monthly rent of Rs.500.00 for the frst sii months i.e. from the 1/10/1949 to 31/3/1950 and thereafter Rs.1000.00 from the 1st day of April 1950 every month regularly without any deduction whatsoever. The said rent of Rs.1000.00 to commence from 1st day of April 1950. 4. The Lessee hereby agrees and undertakes to have a permanent building erected on the open space at a cost of not less than Rs.1,00,000.00. 5. The said rent of Rs.1000.00 to commence from 1st day of April 1950. 4. The Lessee hereby agrees and undertakes to have a permanent building erected on the open space at a cost of not less than Rs.1,00,000.00. 5. On the eipiration or sooner determination of these presents on the Lessee having fulflled all the terms and conditions on his part to be observed and performed and contained herein, the Lessor shall be at liberty to buy over the newly erected structures by the Lessee as aforesaid at a valuation to be fied by the respective Architects of the parties and in case of difference at a valuation as may be fied by an umpire to be nominated by the said Architects. In the event of the Lessor not agreeing to buy up the structures, the Lessee shall be entitled to remove the same within 3 months leaving the ground in a proper level. 7. If the said building is erected, the Lessee shall not make or permit to make any material alterations or additions to the said building as also to the buildings at present subsisting in the said land without the previous consent of the Lessor which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. All additions and alterations to the eiisting structures of the Lessor shall be the property of the Lessor alone. 19. If during the continuance of these presents the Lessor shall desire to sell the said lands, hereditaments and premises hereby demised the Lessor will give to the Lessee the frst option to purchase the same at the price offered to the Lessor." (Emphasis added) 14.6 As far as the supplementary lease deed dtd. 22/1/1968, Clause Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 are relevant which read as under : "1. The Lessee shall be entitled to pull down and demolish the eiisting two structures on the demised premises which structures are more particularly shown in pink colour on the plan anneied hereto. The demolition work shall be carried out by the Lessee at his own eipense and at his entire and sole risk and account. It is however agreed that the Lessors shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever in respect of demolition of the eiisting old tenements. The demolition work shall be carried out by the Lessee at his own eipense and at his entire and sole risk and account. It is however agreed that the Lessors shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever in respect of demolition of the eiisting old tenements. The Lessee shall be entitled to his own costs and eipenses erect or construct new structures place of and stead of the said tenements and the structures according to approved Municipal plans and with the permission of the appropriate authorities in the connection as may from time to time be necessary or required and such constructions shall be carried out with good materials and strictly in accordance with the Municipal bye-laws and building rules and regulations for time being in force. The constructions so made shall be property of the lessee alone. The Lessee shall at all times remain liable for breach of non-observance of any law or byelaw, building rules and other rules and regulations. 2. The Lessee shall at his own costs and eipenses be entitled to get the present tenements and occupiers of the two old structures shown in pink colour on the plan anneied hereto vacated and shall in that event be entitled to make such arrangement with the said tenants and occupiers for giving them alternative accommodation or otherwise as he may think ft and the Lessors shall not in any way be responsible for removing the said tenants and occupiers from the said structures. 4. The Lessee shall be entitled to deal with or dispose off, mortgage, charge or create any lien on the demised structures or buildings or any part thereof for the purpose of raising a loan without the consent of the Lessors and that the Lessors shall not be entitled to raise any objection to the same. 5. The Lessors hereby give to the Lessees permission to use and / or let out sub-let or sub-lease the demised premises or any part thereof for any business, factory, godown, offce purposes and / or residence purposes. 6. In consideration of the benefts and concessions hereby granted by the Lessors to the Lessee the Lessee shall pay to the Lessors Rs.4000.00 as rent per month from 1/2/1968 till the eipiry of the period of the lease. 10. The said Indenture of Lease dtd. 6. In consideration of the benefts and concessions hereby granted by the Lessors to the Lessee the Lessee shall pay to the Lessors Rs.4000.00 as rent per month from 1/2/1968 till the eipiry of the period of the lease. 10. The said Indenture of Lease dtd. 16/8/1949 shall continue in full force and effect have as modifed and/or amended hereby and shall henceforth be operative as though the provisions contained and herein were originally incorporated in the said Indenture of Lease dtd. 16/8/1949 and the covenants conditions and provisions of said Indenture of Lease dtd. 16/8/1949 have as are hereby modifed shall have effect eicept clauses Nos. 10 and 13 and proviso clause of clause no.11 of the original lease which the parties hereby agree to be dropped and to be treated and non eiistent in the original lease. 11. The Lessee shall at any time at his discretion be entitled to sell the structures built by him or any part thereof or to sell or assign his interest in the Lease as also assign the entire business of Messers. Garment Cleaning Works together with the structures of structure without the consent or approval of the Lessors provided. However that such transfer or assignment shall be subject to terms and conditions of the said indenture of Lease and these presents herein." (Emphasis added) 14.7 Mr. Naidu, learned counsel has more particularly relied on above clauses including Clause No.11 of the indenture dtd. 22/1/1968. By the said Clause No.11, it has been provided that, lessee at any time at his discretion be entitled to sale of structures built by him or any part thereof or to sell or assign his interest in the lease as also assign the entire business of M/s. Garment Cleaning Works together with the structures without the consent or approval of the lessors. However, it is further provided that, such transfer or assignment shall be subject to terms and conditions of the said indenture of lease dtd. 16/8/1949 as well as supplementary lease dead dtd. 22/1/1968. However, it is further provided that, such transfer or assignment shall be subject to terms and conditions of the said indenture of lease dtd. 16/8/1949 as well as supplementary lease dead dtd. 22/1/1968. The Clause No.4 of the 1968 supplementary lease deed also grant the right to Lessee to deal with or dispose off, mortgage, charge or create any lien on the demised structures or building or any part thereof for the purposes of raising a loan without the consent of the Lessors and that the Lessors shall not be entitled to raise any objection to the same. The Clause No.5 gives right to the Lessee to use and/or let out sub-let or sub-lease the demised premises or any part thereof for business, factory, godown, offce purposes and/or for the purposes of the residence. The Clause No.6 provides that in consideration of the benefts and concessions granted by the Lessors to the Lessee the Lessee shall pay to the Lessors Rs.4000.00 as rent per month from 1/2/1968 till the eipiry of the period of the lease. 14.8 Thus, what is signifcant to note that rights are given to the lessee in the properties which are constructed on the said land. In view of these terms and conditions of the original lease deed as modifed by supplementary lease deed, it is the contention of Mr. Naidu that, the said "Garment House" building has to be eicluded while deciding the compensation. However, the said contentions raised by Mr. Naidu are required to be eiamined on the basis of eviction decree passed by the Appellate Court. The operative portion of decree passed by the Appellate Court is already reproduced hereinabove. The eviction decree passed by the Appellate Court of Small Causes Court, Mumbai is very clear. By the eviction decree, the defendants were directed to hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs as described in Schedule 'A' within three months from the date of the decree. Said Schedule 'A' as anneied to the plaint is already set out hereinabove. The said Schedule 'A' clearly mentions entire suit property i.e. 5054 square yards and specifcally mentions about all that piece or parcel of Foras Land or ground known as "Dorachi Khar" with the messauge, tenements or dwelling houses standing thereon. The contention raised by Mr. Naidu on the basis of supplementary lease deed dtd. The said Schedule 'A' clearly mentions entire suit property i.e. 5054 square yards and specifcally mentions about all that piece or parcel of Foras Land or ground known as "Dorachi Khar" with the messauge, tenements or dwelling houses standing thereon. The contention raised by Mr. Naidu on the basis of supplementary lease deed dtd. 22/1/1968 and the contention that Garment House was constructed pursuant to rights given by said supplementary lease deed cannot be appreciated at this stage. The decree passed by the Appellate Court is very specifc. The decree of eviction with respect to entire suit property is passed which includes land and structures standing thereon. The contention of Mr. Naidu that the Schedule 'A' anneied to the plaint is the schedule of the property in accordance with the Indenture of Lease dtd. 16/8/1994 and as the said Garment House was constructed pursuant to rights given by supplementary lease dtd. 27/1/1968 is not relevant. If it is held that the eviction decree is not passed by the Appellate Court with respect to Garment House then the same will amount to going behind the decree. Various contentions raised by Mr. Naidu on the basis of terms and conditions of Indenture of Lease dtd. 19/8/1949 and supplementary lease dtd. 27/1/1968 are on the merits of the case and on the basis of the interpretation of various terms and conditions of the lease deed and supplementary lease deed. However, as far as the present inquiry is concerned, the scope of the same is very limited i.e. to ascertain reasonable compensation which the tenant is liable to pay for use and occupation of the suit premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have let out the suit premises and earned rent, if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The suit premises in the said suit bearing R.A.E. and R Suit No.720/2334 of 1988 includes the land and structures standing thereon and therefore, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Naidu that only land is required to be taken into consideration and not the structures standing thereon and that in any case, the said Garment House cannot be taken into consideration is without any basis. Naidu that only land is required to be taken into consideration and not the structures standing thereon and that in any case, the said Garment House cannot be taken into consideration is without any basis. The said various terms and conditions of the lease deed and supplementary lease deed will be relevant for deciding the matter on merits, however, the scope of the present inquiry is very limited as set out hereinabove and therefore, the said aspects are totally outside the scope of the present inquiry. 14.9 Thus, for the above reasons, I conclude that for determining fair and reasonable monthly compensation which can be directed to be deposited by the Applicants during the pendency of the Civil Revision Application, only land cannot be taken into consideration and land and building including said "Garment House" is required to be taken into consideration. 15. Second Point : What is the effect of not seeking prayer of mesne profts in the plaint and in view of that is it not necessary to direct deposit of compensation per month as condition of stay to eviction decree? 15.1 Mr. Naidu has raised the contention that prayer of mesne proft is not made in the plaint and therefore, it is not necessary to fi any compensation which the tenant is required to be directed to be deposited during the pendency of the Civil Revision Application. He has also relied on decisions of Supreme Court in Ganapati Madhav Sawant (supra) and Mohemmed Amin (supra). The said contention is required to be rejected for more than one reason. 15.2 The above contention of Mr. Naidu is contrary to the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7774 of 2022. The Supreme Court has remanded back the matter for determining the compensation which the tenant is required to deposit per month. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the High Court is required to undertake eiercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn the rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the High Court is required to undertake eiercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn the rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. It has been specifcally observed by the Supreme Court that the matter is remanded back to the High Court to determine the compensation for occupation and use of the premises in question by the tenant afresh and take into consideration the observations made in the said order dtd. 9/11/2022. Thus, the said contention raised by Mr. Naidu is not available to be raised after the remand of the matter by the Supreme Court with the specifc directions as contained in the order of the Supreme Court. 15.3 In any case, the conclusions recorded by the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra), are very relevant. The same reads as under :- "(1) while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in eiecution of decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being dismissed and in so far as those proceedings are concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be reasonable. (2) in case of premises governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the defnition of tenant contained in clause (l) of Sec. 2 of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely by its termination under the general law; it terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction. With effect from that date, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profts or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree. (3) the doctrine of merger does not have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date." (Emphasis added) 15.4 The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Super Mai International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) has held as follows:- "77. In the light of the discussions made above we hold that in an appeal or revision preferred by a tenant against an order or decree of an eviction passed under the Rent Act it is open to the appellate or the Revisional Court to stay the eiecution of the order or the decree on terms, including a direction to pay monthly rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent. Needless to say that in fiing the amount subject to payment of which the eiecution of the order/decree is stayed, the Court would eiercise restraint and would not fi any eicessive, fanciful or punitive amount." (Emphasis added) 15.5 Thus, while granting the stay of eviction decree, the Appellate Court or Revisional Court has to put reasonable conditions including directing the Applicants to deposit compensation which the tenant is liable to pay for use and occupation of the premises after the passing of the decree of eviction and the same be in consonance with the rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. Thus, whether prayer of mesne proft is made in the plaint or not is totally irrelevant. The decisions of Supreme Court relied on by Mr. Naidu have no application. 15.6 It is signifcant to note that the said orders are required to be passed by eiercising power under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC while staying the decree of eviction as sought by the tenant and is granted by the Appellate Court/ Revisional Court. Order XLI Rule 5 provides that an Appeal shall not operate as stay of proceedings eicept so far as the Appellate Court may order stay of eiecution of such decree for suffcient cause. Order XLI Rule 5 provides that an Appeal shall not operate as stay of proceedings eicept so far as the Appellate Court may order stay of eiecution of such decree for suffcient cause. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of Order XLI provides that no order for stay of eiecution shall be made under Sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfed that inter alia security has been given by the Applicants for the due performance of such decree or order as made ultimately be binding upon him. 15.7 For the above reasons, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Naidu that as the plaint does not contain prayer of mesne profts, compensation can not be directed to be deposited during the pendency of the Civil Revision Application. The said compensation will be determined and directed to be paid in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties Ltd. (supra) and Super Mai International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in terms of the directions dtd. 9/11/2022 issued by the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 7774 of 2022 as well as by eiercising power under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. 16. Third Point : Whether the contention of the Applicants that 10 rooms and 10 shops are not in possession of the Applicants can be taken into consideration while arriving at the monthly compensation ? 16.1 Mr. Naidu raised the contention that, 10 rooms and 10 shops are not in possession of the Applicants and therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration while arriving at the market rate. Mr. Naidu has contended that Respondent Nos.10 and 19 are currently in possession, occupation and use of said 10 shops and 10 rooms which were attorned to the lessee. He pointed out paragraph 33 to 36 of the Affdavit-in-lieu of Eiamination-in-chief and Rejoinder dtd. 7/1/2023. He therefore submitted that the Applicants are in possession of only 3674 square meters for the purpose of computing compensation to be deposited pending the hearing and fnal disposal of the Civil Revision Application. The said contentions raised in paragraphs 33 to 36 are set out herein-below for ready reference:- "33. 7/1/2023. He therefore submitted that the Applicants are in possession of only 3674 square meters for the purpose of computing compensation to be deposited pending the hearing and fnal disposal of the Civil Revision Application. The said contentions raised in paragraphs 33 to 36 are set out herein-below for ready reference:- "33. I say that from the date of the Order of the Appellate Court till date, Respondent No.19 is in possession, occupation and use of Shop Nos.1,5, 7, 11 and 19 and Room Nos.2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18 and 20 and Respondent No.10 is in possession, occupation and use of Shop Nos.3, 9, 13, 15, 17 and Room Nos.4, 14, 16. 34. I say that thus the rental income from the 10 shops and 10 rooms are not being received by the Estate of Late C.U. Padia. I say that the Respondent Nos.10 & 19 are enjoying the respective shops and premises in their possession from the date of Order of the First Appellate Court till date. 35. I say that the said 10 shops and 10 rooms behind the shop being two chawl like structures, the land underneath and appurtenant to the said two chawl like structures admeasures about 551 sq. mtrs. Thus, a part portion of the demised premises is in use and occupation of the Respondent Nos.10 and 19 as more specifcally set out above. 36. I say that in light of the above fact, the demised premises which is in use, occupation and possession of the Eiecutor admeasures 3674 sq. mtrs. only for the purpose of computing compensation to be deposited pending the hearing and fnal disposal of the CRA." (Emphasis added) 16.2 As far as the above categorical statement made by the Applicants in said Affdavit-in-lieu of Eiamination-in-Chief and Rejoinder dtd. 7/1/2023, it is signifcant to note that, there is no further reply or sur-rejoinder fled by the Respondent Nos.10 and 19 and therefore, the said contentions have remained uncontroverted. It is signifcant to note that, the Applicants have given specifc particulars regarding which rooms/shops are in possession of the Respondent Nos.19 and 10 and therefore, absence of Sur-Rejoinder denying said averments is very signifcant. It is signifcant to note that, the Applicants have given specifc particulars regarding which rooms/shops are in possession of the Respondent Nos.19 and 10 and therefore, absence of Sur-Rejoinder denying said averments is very signifcant. 16.3 Respondent No.19 in the written submissions have dealt with this aspect in the following manner :- 16.4 A bare perusal of the aforesaid contention in the written submission raised on behalf of Respondent No.19 makes it clear that Respondent No.19 has not denied that the said shops and said rooms are in possession of the Respondent No.19 and Respondent No.10 as per the details given by the Applicants. It is signifcant to note that, even said aspect is not denied by the Respondent No.10 and similar contention is raised by the Respondent No. 10. 16.5 Therefore, there is substance in the contention of Mr. Naidu that the Applicants are not in possession of the said 10 shops and said 10 rooms. Therefore, the said 10 shops and 10 rooms and corresponding area of the land i.e. 551 sq. mtrs. is required to be eicluded while calculating the compensation amount which the Applicants are required to be directed to be deposited in this Court. Thus, for the purpose of ascertaining market rate which the Applicants should deposit per month in this Court the land area is required to be considered as 3674 sq. mtrs along with the building standing thereon. 17. Fourth Point:- What is the reasonable monthly compensation which can be directed to be deposited per month by the Applicants as a condition of stay of eviction decree ? 17.1 At the outset, it is to be noted that this is an adversarial litigation. Therefore, it is for the parties to bring on record the relevant, cogent and reliable material on the basis of which the Court can fi the reasonable compensation which can be directed to be deposited by the Applicants during the pendency of Civil Revision Application as a condition of stay. However, it is to be noted that none of the parties have produced on record cogent and satisfactory material which will be helpful for determining the compensation for huge property admeasuring about 45,486 sq. ft. of carpet area. The material on record shows that no comparable instances are produced regarding huge properties. However, it is to be noted that none of the parties have produced on record cogent and satisfactory material which will be helpful for determining the compensation for huge property admeasuring about 45,486 sq. ft. of carpet area. The material on record shows that no comparable instances are produced regarding huge properties. Even the valuation reports produced of the valuers also do not take into consideration the huge area of the property and consideration of the same while arriving at the compensation of the suit property on the basis of instances of comparatively very small property. It is well-known that the rent per sq. ft. for a small premises, is much more than the rent per sq. ft. for huge premises, if compared with their respective per sq. ft. rates and the difference is very large. In this case, admittedly, Reserve Bank of India was in possession of the said Garment House earlier till 2015. None of the parties have produced on record or pointed out the rent which the Reserve Bank of India was paying, which could have been taken into consideration by this Court. 17.2 It is signifcant to note that the Applicants have not fled any valuation report and on the basis of certain calculations have stated that Rs.3,40,000.00 should be the compensation. Admittedly, the suit premises are situated in prominent area of Mumbai i.e. Worli. By no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that such a huge property can be let out for a meager amount of rent of Rs.3,40,000.00 per month. In such a prominent locality of Worli, Mumbai commercial premises admeasuring 45,486 sq.ft. will not be available for such a low rental amount. As far as the rent/compensation as set out in the Affdavits and/or valuation reports fled on behalf of Respondent Nos.10 and 19, there is huge variance. In fact various Affdavits fled by same parties set out rent/compensation amount which is drastically in variance with each other. In fact same Affdavit fled by a party set out more than one rent/compensation amount and the said amounts of rent/compensation are drastically in variance with each other. 17.3 For determination of the reasonable compensation which can be directed to be paid by the Applicants as a condition of stay of eviction decree, it is necessary to set out the rent as mentioned by the respective parties in respective Affdavits/Replies/ Rejoinders. 17.3 For determination of the reasonable compensation which can be directed to be paid by the Applicants as a condition of stay of eviction decree, it is necessary to set out the rent as mentioned by the respective parties in respective Affdavits/Replies/ Rejoinders. The same is set out hereinbelow in tabular form:- 17.4 The valuation of Rs.1,59,93,245.00 per month as set out in the affdavit of Respondent No.19 dtd. 13/8/2018 is on the basis of leave and license agreements which are dtd. 22/3/2018, 14/3/2018, 29/1/2018 and 6/11/2017. The summary of all these leave and license agreements as set out in the report of Khandekar, Architects and Surveyors in tabular form is set out herein below:- 17.5 The summary as set out in the said report of Khandekar, Architects and Surveyors is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: "SUMMARY :- i) On the basis of investment theory ground foor rent will be @ Rs.233.00 p.s.f.t. pm. ii) On the basis of Market Rental upper foors rent will be @ Rs.140.00 p.s.ft. Gross market rental for the ground foor premises admeasuring 2091.54/- sq.mt. will be Rs.52,45,607.00 pm and Gross market rental for the upper foor premises admeasuring 7132/- sq. mt. will be Rs.1,07,47,638.00 pm. Total monthly rent will be Rs.1,59,93,245.00. In light of the above, I am of the opinion that the gross monthly compensation for the ground foor commercial premises will be as given herein above. The Plaintiffs are entitled to interest for unpaid mesne proft from due date till the date of payment at a reasonable rate of interest." 17.6 It is true that the said valuation report relies on instances of leave and license with respect to large properties compared to other valuation reports/instances of leave and license agreements produced by the parties. However, the suit premises is very huge property compared to the leave and license agreements considered in the said report of Khandekar, Architects and Surveyor. It is further signifcant to note that limited affdavit dtd. 9/12/2022 of the Respondent No.19 i.e. the same Respondent who has produced said valuation report of Khandekar, Architects and Surveyors, inter alia, mentions that the rent/compensation per month is Rs.83,40,312.96. Thus, there is huge variance between the said rent/compensation per month of Rs.1,59,93,245.00 and Rs.83,40,312.96 claimed by same Respondent i.e. Respondent No.19 and therefore, the valuation report of Khandekar, Architects and Surveyor cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, there is huge variance between the said rent/compensation per month of Rs.1,59,93,245.00 and Rs.83,40,312.96 claimed by same Respondent i.e. Respondent No.19 and therefore, the valuation report of Khandekar, Architects and Surveyor cannot be taken into consideration. 17.7 The Affdavit of Respondent No.10 dtd. 29/8/2018 mentions four different amounts towards rent/compensation per month as set out in the above chart at Sr. No.2 i.e. Rs.1,97,39,414.00 or Rs.2,32,22,840.00 or Rs.2,07,71,884.25 or Rs.2,32,19,211.43. The basis on which the said amount of rent/compensation are arrived at are leave and license agreement dtd. 6/6/2017 regarding premises admeasuring 1650 sq. ft. and transfer deed dtd. 19/3/2018 for premises admeasuring 185.88 sq. mtrs. i.e. 2000.07 sq.ft. Thus, the same cannot be safely relied on for determination of rent/compensation per month for suit premises having huge area of 45,486 sq. ft. 17.8 Additional affdavit-in-reply of Respondent No.19 dtd. 1/7/2019 states that total monthly rent of the land admeasuring 4225.78 sq. mtrs. would be Rs.67,76,038.23. It is signifcant to note that the said rent/compensation is only for the land. However, the limited affdavit of Respondent No.19 dtd. 9/12/2022 inter alia, states that rent/compensation be Rs.83,40,312.96 per month for land as well as building which is of huge area of 45,486 sq.ft. The said amount of rent/compensation of Rs.67,76,038.23 per month is calculated on the basis of leave and license agreement dtd. 17/4/2018 for offce premises admeasuring 4033 sq.ft. and leave and license agreement dtd. 7/12/2018 for commercial premises admeasuring 4250 sq.ft. Thus, the said rent/compensation per month only for land is also not reliable. 17.9 In the limited affdavit fled on behalf of Respondent No.19 dtd. 9/12/2022 reliance was placed on three leave and license agreements with respect to shop/commercial premises. Respondent No.19 on the basis of said three Leave and License agreements by taking into consideration size of the suit property of 45,486 sq. ft. calculated the monthly rent/compensation. The same are given in tabular form in the said Affdavit. The same are set out herein-below for ready reference:- 17.10 The above compensation is arrived at on the basis of three distinct leave and license agreements. First Leave and License Agreement is dtd. 7/10/2020 (Area 33.44 sq. mtr. i.e. 359.95 sq.ft.), second Leave and License Agreement is dtd. 16/7/2018 (Area 4422 sq.ft.) and third Leave and License Agreement is dtd. 8/8/2022 (Area 375 sq.ft.). First Leave and License Agreement is dtd. 7/10/2020 (Area 33.44 sq. mtr. i.e. 359.95 sq.ft.), second Leave and License Agreement is dtd. 16/7/2018 (Area 4422 sq.ft.) and third Leave and License Agreement is dtd. 8/8/2022 (Area 375 sq.ft.). Therefore, none of the Leave and License Agreements are relevant for the present inquiry as the relevant date is 4/5/2017 when the eviction decree was passed. The respective areas of the premises are very small i.e. 359.95 sq.ft., 4422 sq. ft. and 375 sq. ft. The compensation as mentioned in said leave and license agreements cannot be considered for arriving at monthly compensation for huge premises admeasuring 45486 sq.ft. carpet area. 17.11 The Respondent No.10 fled affdavit dtd. 23/12/2022 and produced on record report dtd. 11/12/2022 of Best Mulyankan Consultant Limited. As per the valuation set out in said report for the year 2017, the rent/compensation is Rs.92,98,000.00 per month. For the year 2018, the same is Rs.71,69,000.00 and from the year 2019, the same is Rs.1,72,75,000.00. For the present inquiry, the relevant year is 2017. The basis on which said Best Mulyankan Consultant Limited arrived at rent/compensation of Rs.92,98,000.00 is anneied in tabular form to the said report. The relevant details are set out herein-below:- 17.12 The above details show that the built-up area of the said premises are 2736 sq. ft., 2000 sq. ft., 3150 sq.ft., respectively. The rent for such a small area cannot be compared with the huge area of suit premises. In any case, what is relevant to note is that even on the basis of said area, by considering the built up area of the suit premises in sq. ft. i.e. 99,282.18 sq.ft., (Built up area of suit premises as considered by Best Mulyankan Consultants Limited) for the year 2017 i.e. the relevant year, the rent/compensation arrived at by said Best Mulyankan Consultant Limited was Rs.92,98,000.00. 17.13 Although the Applicants has not fled any valuation report on record, in paragraph 75 of the Affdavit-in-lieu of Eiamination-in-Chief of the Applicants, it is contended that 34,885 per sq. mtrs. is the valuation. The same is arrived at by taking into consideration reversionary right acquired by the Respondent No.19 in 2008. It is further contended that as the Applicants are using 3674 sq. mtrs. mtrs. is the valuation. The same is arrived at by taking into consideration reversionary right acquired by the Respondent No.19 in 2008. It is further contended that as the Applicants are using 3674 sq. mtrs. of demised land, ready recknor valuation of the said land is Rs.12,81,67,490.00 and considering 6% p.a. as return, Rs.76,90,000.00 p.a. return and therefore, per month compensation be fied at Rs.6,40,000.00 p.m. for land admeasuring 3674 sq. mtrs. 17.14 It is signifcant to note that the Applicants have not produced any valuation report and the compensation is sought on the basis of 2008 transaction which showed that the same was acquired by Respondent No.19 at price of Rs.5,50,00,000.00. In fact, the Supreme Court, by order dtd. 9/11/2022 has specifcally held that the said valuation of 2008 cannot be the basis for valuation of 2017. Therefore, said valuation of Rs.6,40,000.00 p.m. as valued by the Applicants cannot be taken into consideration. 17.15 As far as the valuation submitted on the basis of most of the valuation reports/leave and license agreements/transfer deeds by Respondent No.10 and Respondent No.19 are concerned, there is vast difference between all the valuations. Apart from that it is signifcant to note that the valuers have taken into consideration the premises which are having very less area compared to the suit premises. Therefore, the same also cannot be relied on entirely. The year of various leave and license agreements are also not of the relevant year i.e. 2017. It is well known that the premises having huge area fetches very less value per sq. ft., if the said value is compared with the rent fetched by the premises having small area. Therefore, many valuation reports submitted by the Respondent No.10 and 19 also cannot be safely relied on to determine the compensation amount. There is vast difference between compensation amount arrived at by Respondent No.10 and 19. 17.16 The Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as the Super Mai International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) held that the Court would fi reasonable amount as compensation and eiercise restraint and would not fi any eiecessive, fanciful or punitive amount and reasonable amount should be fied. As observed hereinabove, this is an adversarial litigation. 17.16 The Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as the Super Mai International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) held that the Court would fi reasonable amount as compensation and eiercise restraint and would not fi any eiecessive, fanciful or punitive amount and reasonable amount should be fied. As observed hereinabove, this is an adversarial litigation. Therefore, it is for the parties to bring on record the relevant, cogent and reliable material on the basis of which the Court can fi the reasonable compensation which can be directed to be deposited by the Applicants during the pendency of Civil Revision Application as a condition of stay. However, it is to be noted that none of the parties have produced on record cogent and satisfactory material which will be helpful for determining the compensation for huge property admeasuring about 45,486 sq. ft. of carpet area. It is also settled position that some guess work is required to be done by the Court while determining the compensation. In additional affdavit-in-reply of Respondent No.19 dtd. 1/7/2019 compensation amount was mentioned at Rs.67,76,038.23 per month only for land admeasuring 4225 sq. mtrs. Respondent No.19 in limited affdavit dtd. 9/12/2022, fled after Supreme Court remanded back the matter, inter alia, mentioned Rs.83,40,312.96 per month as compensation amount. Respondent No.10 in affdavit dtd. 23/12/2022 for the year 2017 mentioned Rs.92,98,000.00 as compensation amount. The aforesaid amounts are by taking into consideration land admeasuring 4225 sq.mtrs. and the two chawls as well as Garment House. 18. The said amount of rent of Rs.67,76,038.23 as set out in additional Affdavit-in-reply of Respondent No. 19 dtd. 1/7/2019 is for the entire land of 4225 sq. mtrs. The Limited Affdavit of Respondent No. 19 dtd. 9/12/2022 inter alia mentions Rs.83,43,312.96 as the rent for land as well as the buildings of only Rs.15,67,274.46. There is difference between the said amounts. If the various aspects discussed hereinabove are taken into consideration particularly basis of all these valuations are leave and license agreements of very small premises and other aspects discussed in detail hereinabove, then it can safely be said that, the said amount of Rs.67,76,038.23 per month is for entire land and all the buildings including two chawls and the Garment House. The average rent per sq. mtr. per month is thus Rs.1603.50 per sq. mtr. Thus for land admeasuring 3674 sq. mtrs. The average rent per sq. mtr. per month is thus Rs.1603.50 per sq. mtr. Thus for land admeasuring 3674 sq. mtrs. (eicluding the land portion on which two chalws are standing alongwith said two chawls) and for the building standing thereon the fare and reasonable market rent/compensation can be Rs.1603.50 X 3674 = Rs.58,91,259.00 per month. According to the Applicants they are making payment towards property tai, security guards and electrical engineer. According to the Applicants the monthly outgoing are Rs.5,10,380.83 . The details of the same are as follows:- 19. By taking into consideration the said amount of Rs.5,10,380.83, the total aggregate rent/compensation per month for suit premises will be Rs.58,91,259.00 Rs.5,10,380.83 = Rs.53,80,878.17. The said amount of Rs.53,80,878.17 can be directed to be deposited by the Applicants during the pendency of the Civil Revision Application as a condition of stay towards fair and reasonable rent. 20. Fifth Point :- Whether building "Garment House" can be kept as security for deposit of such compensation? 21. Siith Point :- Whether the Applicants can be allowed to furnish fi deposit receipts as security for such compensation? 22. Mr. Naidu has raised the point that the building Garment House be kept as security towards the said compensation or he be allowed to furnish Fiied Deposit receipts as security for such compensation. As far as the contention that Garment House can be kept as security, decree passed by the learned Appellate Court clearly shows that eviction decree is for the entire suit property. Thus, in effect, the eviction decree is also passed with respect to the Garment House. Therefore, the Garment House cannot be accepted as security. The contention that Fiied Deposit receipts be allowed to be given as security also requires to be rejected as once the amounts are deposited by the Applicants, the Registry of this Court immediately deposits the same in Fiied Deposits with Nationalised Bank. Therefore, the contention that Garment House be allowed to be kept as security or Fiied Deposit receipts be allowed to be kept as security cannot be accepted. 23. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following order:- ORDER (i) Order granting ad-interim relief dtd. 2/4/2018 shall continue to operate till disposal of the Civil Revision Application eicept with respect to land admeasuring about 551 sq. mtrs. 23. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following order:- ORDER (i) Order granting ad-interim relief dtd. 2/4/2018 shall continue to operate till disposal of the Civil Revision Application eicept with respect to land admeasuring about 551 sq. mtrs. alongwith two chawls standing thereon as mentioned hereinabove on the following conditions:- (a) Fair and reasonable compensation which the Applicants shall deposit p.m. is determined at Rs.53,80,878.17. The said compensation be deposited from 4/5/2017; (b) Applicants are granted sii months time to deposit the arrears from today, deducting the amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 already deposited by the Applicants. However, the Applicants shall deposit the said compensation amount p.m. w.e.f. 1/5/2023. The Applicants to pay the compensation p.m. on or before 20th of each month. (c) The Applicants shall deposit the said monthly charges every month on or before 20th of each month and in case of any four defaults, the Respondents are granted liberty to apply to this Court for vacation of interim relief. (d) The Applicants shall not create any third party right, title and interest with respect to the suit premises. However, the Applicants are granted liberty to approach this Court in case any premises are proposed to be given on leave and license basis to third parties. (e) Respondent Nos.10 and 19 shall not create any third party right, title and interest with respect to the said portion of about 551 sq. mtrs. along with two chawls standing thereon. 24. At this stage, Mr. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants seeks stay of this order. However, I have already granted sii months' time to pay arrears. Therefore, suffcient time is there for the Applicants to challenge this order. On the request of Mr. Naidu it is clarifed that the payment which is to be made w.e.f. 1/5/2023 for the frst three months period i.e. for the period of May 2023, June 2023 and July 2023 can be made on or before 31/8/2023.