BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITEDversusTAJDIN JAVERBHAI MAVANY (SINCE DEC) REP THR. LRS AND ANR

                              903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




Suchitra



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

               CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.17/2026
                                IN
                      SECOND APPEAL NO.7/2013


 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION
 LIMITED, a Company incorporated under
 the Companies Act, 1956, having their Head
 Oice at Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6, Curlimbhoy
 Road, Ballard Estate, P. B. No. 688,
 Mumbai-400 001.                                    … APPLICANT

           Versus

 1. TAJDIN JAVERBHAI MAVANY (since
 deceased) represented through his legal
 Representatives

 1a) Smt. Sakina Tajdin Mavany,
 widow of late Tajdin Mavany, major of age,
 resident of L-3, Breach Candy Apartments
 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026.

 1b) Smt. Praveen Tajdin Mavany,
 daughter of late Tajdin Mavany, major of age,
 married and her husband;

 1c) Shri Anwarali Chatoor, son of
 Alimohamad Saboor Chatoor
 major of age, married,

 Both residing at House No. 35/1B.
 Eli Bank Road, Colombo, Sri Lanka;

 1d) Smt. Dilshad Tajdin Mavany,
 daughter of late Tajdin Mavany,
 major of age, married, and her husband;

 1e) Shri Mansur Ismail Sayani,
 son of Hajibhai Ismail Sayani,
 major of age,

 Both residing at House No. 201/A,
 Jolly Maker Apartment
 No.1, Cufe Parade, Mumbai-400 005;

                                Page 1 of 12
                              28th August 2026
                              903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




1f ) Shri Anwar Tajdin Mavany.
son of late Tajdin Mavany, major of age,
married; and his wife,

1g) Smt. Mahavas Bhahrbabaki.
daughter of Hussein Bhahrbabaki, major of
age, housewife,

Both residing at House No. 217, South Clark
Drive, Beverley Hills, CA.90211, (USA);

1h) Shri Yasin Tajdin Mavany,
son of late Tajdin Mavany,
major of age, married; and his wife,

1i) Smt. Purna Yasin Mavany,
daughter of Mahesh N. hakkar, major of age,
housewife, Both residing at L-3,
Breach Candy Apartments,
Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026;

1j) Smt. Muna Tajdin Mavany,
daughter of late Tajdin Mavany,
major of age, Married; and her husband,

1k) Shri Sandeep Khanna,
son of Rajinder Khanna, major of age,

Both residing at House No. 303,
Springs Road, Bedford,
Massachusetts 01730, U.S.A.

All represented by their duly constituted
Power of Attorney Shri Sandesh Krishna Naik,
resident of A. D. Costa Road, Margao-Goa.

2. NANU ENGINEERS PRIVATE
LIMITED, A Company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956, having its Head
Oice at House No. 15/1449 'Nanu House',
Behind Grace Church, Varde Valaulicar Road,
Margao, Goa 403 601, represented herein by
its Director, Mr. Sankalp Sandesh Naik,
Indian National, Aged 41 years, residing at
House No. 2831, "Krishnasheel", Monte -             RESPONDENTS
Hill, Borda, Margao, Goa 403602.


Mr S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms Neelam Patil and Mr
Yash Kunde, Advocates for the Applicant.


                                Page 2 of 12
                              28th August 2026
                           903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




 Mr S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Ms Neha Kholkar and Ms
 Saicha Dessai, Advocates for the Respondents.

               CORAM:             VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

               DATED:             28th AUGUST 2026

 ORDER :


1.    Registry to waive oice objections and register the
Application.

2.    By this Application, the Original Appellant in Second
Appeal No.7/2013 seeks review of this Court’s order dated
18.02.2026 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.93/2026; the
order sought to be reviewed directs the Original Appellant/
Applicant herein, to deposit rent enhanced from Rs.25,000/- per
month to Rs.5 lakhs per month commencing from 01.01.2020 to
01.01.2026, and thereafter to deposit the rent at the
aforementioned rate every quarter; the order under review has
also directed deposit of the monthly compensation of Rs.5 lakhs
with GST at the rates applicable. Further, the order also directs
transfer of the rents deposited at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per
month under order of this Court dated 23.07.2014, lying with
the Registry, to the account of the Respondent No.2 in this
Application and to also make payment of the enhanced rent from
01.01.2020 till 01.01.2026 deposited in the Court, to the
account of the Respondent No.2.

3.    he Review Application, as argued by Senior Advocate Shri
Saresh Lotlikar for the Review Petitioner, is premised on an error

                             Page 3 of 12
                           28th August 2026
                           903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




apparent committed by the Court whilst passing the order, which
are on the following grounds:

      (a)   hat whilst passing the impugned order, this Court
      considered the calculations submitted by the Valuer, under
      Valuation Report dated 22.12.2025, of a contiguous
      property to have been Rs.15,28,80,000/- for the year 2019,
      when in fact the report actually states this value to be that
      as on 22.12.2025; according to the submission made, if the
      aforementioned value of the contiguous plot was correctly
      taken as on 22.12.2025, applying the return on investment
      at the rate of 5% p.a., and reducing the value of the
      contiguous property to what would have been its value on
      21.02.2019 (date of the sale), the rent for the suit property
      would work out to an amount of less than Rs.3 lakhs per
      month. It was submitted that there is an error apparent on
      the face of the record in the impugned order, which takes
      into consideration the aforementioned value of the plot for
      the year 2019, when that was the value in 2025. According
      to the counsel, there is an error apparent in the calculation
      of the amounts by this Court.

      (b)   hat the directions issued by this Court to release the
      entire deposited rent, irst at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per
      month and now at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per month from
      01.01.2020 to 01.01.2026 is contrary to the principles laid
      down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and
      Another v/s Super Max International Private Limited and


                             Page 4 of 12
                           28th August 2026
                            903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




       Others1, which postulates that rents deposited, as a rule
       should not be released to the landlord until the inal
       decision in the appeal, unless the landlord makes out an
       exceptional case for such release during the course of the
       appeal. According to the learned Senior counsel, there is no
       such exceptional case made out in the Application and no
       reasons stated by the Court to depart from the rule laid
       down in Super Max International Private Limited and
       Others (supra).

       (c)     It was contended that the application iled by the
       Respondent No.2, seeks enhancement of rent from
       Rs.25,000/- to Rs.6 lakhs per month from 23.07.2014, and
       in efect, is an application for review or modiication of the
       order of 23.07.2014 passed by this Court granting stay of
       the operation of the impugned Decree dated 31.05.2012;
       it is argued that the order of stay granted by this Court had
       directed the Appellant to secure the interim review by
       depositing a rent, enhanced from Rs.1,000/- per month
       under the contract to Rs.25,000/- per month.             he
       Application now seeks a review of this Order without
       showing any cause for the same. he application being not
       maintainable, the same should have been dismissed rather
       than granting enhanced rent under the order sought to be
       reviewed.

4.     he Review Application has been opposed by Senior
Advocate Shri Subodh Kantak for the Respondents who contends

1 (2009) 9 SC 772
                              Page 5 of 12
                            28th August 2026
                             903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. He
further submits that the application is for enhancement of the
rent being deposited by the Appellant to secure the interim relief,
since the rent of Rs.25,000/-, under orders of this Court had not
been enhanced since the year 2014, and the property being a
commercial one, used for a petrol pump, the present market rents
ought to be paid to the Respondents. He further submitted, on
instructions from Respondent No.2, that the Respondents are
ready and willing to allow all the enhanced rents which are to be
deposited, and henceforth to be deposited, at the rate of Rs.5
lakhs per month, as also the rents earlier deposited at the rate of
Rs.25,000/- per month, to continue in deposit with the Registry
of this Court and the same may not be released or transferred to
the Respondent No.2 as directed by the order under review. To
that extent, the learned counsel submits, that this Court may
modify its order dated 18.02.2026.

5.    Before dealing with the irst and second ground raised by
the Review Petitioner, I would address myself to the third ground
raised during the hearing of the matter. It is the Petitioner’s case
in review that the Respondents, in their application have not
sought release of the rents deposited in the Court or of the
enhanced rents. It was further submitted that the application
partakes of a review of this Court’s order of 23.07.2014 by which
the contractual rent of Rs.1,000/- per month was raised to
Rs.25,000/- per month, which was to be deposited every month,
to secure the interim relief of stay of the eviction order. It was
also contended that such an application for modiication of the
rent was not maintainable.
                               Page 6 of 12
                             28th August 2026
                           903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




      Perusal of the Application, and more speciically paragraphs
10 and 11 thereof, clearly seek enhancement of the rent to be
deposited from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.6 lakhs per month, and further,
at paragraph 11, a direction is sought to the Appellant to deposit
and pay the enhanced monthly rent of Rs.6 lakhs from
23.07.2014. It might be so that the formal prayer does not
request payment of the enhanced rent to the Respondents, but
however, such a relief is clearly sought in paragraph 11 itself.
Further, while it is true that the application would amount to one
seeking modiication of the order of 23.07.2014, that order itself
grants liberty to the Respondents to ile an appropriate
application for any further relief, meaning thereby, an application
for modiication of the rent or even enhancement. Considering
the reasons stated in the application, that considerable time had
passed since the impugned Decree dated 31.05.2012 was stayed,
the application for seeking enhancement was justiied, and even
more so once liberty to ile the same had been speciically granted
by this Court. his ground is therefore not available to the
Review Petitioner to seek review of the order as the application
was maintainable.

6.    he irst ground for review is that this Court has
committed an error apparent by considering the value of the
contiguous plot referred to in the Valuation Report of Mahendra
Kakule as Rs.15,28,80,000/- as in the year 2019. On perusal of
the Valuation Report, whilst it might be true that the
aforementioned igure was taken as the market value as on the
date of the valuation report i.e. 22.12.2025, even considering this
value and calculating the same backwards to the year 2019, if one
                             Page 7 of 12
                           28th August 2026
                            903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




calculates the return on investment @ 5% p.a. taken by this
Court in the order under review, would still work out to a little
over Rs.5 lakhs. In fact, if corrected, the same would work out to
Rs.4,95,000/- on the average between 2020 and 2025 and at an
average of Rs.5,14,600/- if the period 2020 to 2026 is considered
on a 5% rise. A calculation to this efect has been placed before
me by the Respondents. Considering these calculations therefore,
there would be no error in the rents set down by this court of
Rs.5 lakhs per month, as in the year 2019 and as directed to be
deposited from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2026. In any event, on
whatever basis the opinion may have been formed on the
calculations and on the valuation of the contiguous property, the
ground taken for review would not be available to the Review
Petitioner, since this was not a ground of error apparent, but was
a ground being argued on the merits of the matter. I therefore
reject the irst ground taken by the Petitioner.

7.    he second ground of review is that the judgment directs
release of the entire rent deposited at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per
month upto 01.01.2020 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs
per month between 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2026, without any
reasons being assigned for such withdrawal in the application; it
was submitted that the direction to pay these amounts is contrary
to the directions of the Supreme Court in Super Max
International Private Limited and Others (supra).

8.    In Super Max International Private Limited and Others
(supra), the High Court did not allow the landlord to take away
the money which was directed to be deposited, as a condition for
                              Page 8 of 12
                            28th August 2026
                          903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




grant of stay of an eviction order, whilst examining the
circumstances under which amounts deposited by the tenant to
secure an order staying the tenant’s eviction, the Supreme Court
has made the following observations:

     “71. We reairm the views expressed in Satyawati Sharma
     and emphasise the need for a more balanced and objective
     approach to the relationship between the landlord and
     tenant. his is not to say that the Court 9 should lean in
     favour of the landlord but merely that there is no longer
     any room for the assumption that all tenants, as a class, are
     in dire circumstances and in desperate need of the Court’s
     protection under all circumstances. (he case of the present
     appellant who is in occupation of an area of 9000 sq ft in a
     building situate at Fort, Mumbai on a rental of Rs 5236.58,
     plus water charges at the rate of Rs 515.35 per month more
     than amply highlights the point.)

     79. Before concluding the decision one more question
     needs to be addressed: what would be the position if the
     tenant’s appeal/revision is allowed and the eviction decree is
     set aside? In that event, naturally, the status e quo ante
     would be restored and the tenant would be entitled to get
     back all the amounts that he was made to pay in excess of
     the contractual rent. hat being the position, the amount
     ixed by the court over and above the contractual monthly
     rent, ordinarily, should not be directed to be paid to the
     landlord during the pendency of the appeal/revision. he
     deposited amount, along with the accrued interest, should

                             Page 9 of 12
                           28th August 2026
                           903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




      only be paid after the inal disposal-to either side depending
      upon the result of the case.

      80. In case for some reason the court inds it just and
      expedient that the amount ixed by it should go to the
      landlord even while the matter is pending. It must be
      careful to direct payment to the landlord on terms so that
      in case the inal decision goes in favour of the tenant the
      payment should be made to him without any undue delay
      or complications.”

9.    What the Supreme Court therefore holds in Super Max
International Private Limited and Others (supra) is that the
amount ixed by the Court, over and above the contractual
monthly rent, ordinarily should not be released to the landlord
during pendency of the appeal and should only be paid with
accrued interest upon inal disposal of the appeal, depending
upon its result;   release of the deposited amount, should be
permitted during pendency of the appeal only in exceptional
circumstances, and provided the same are made out in the
Application. he observations of the Supreme Court which are
referred above constitute the ratio of the judgment as that was
question to be decided before the Supreme Court, and is binding
on me. To that extent, if my judgment under review has departed
from the law laid down in Super Max International Private
Limited and Others (supra), the direction to release the deposited
rents, as contained in my judgment dated 18.02.2026, is bound
to be reviewed.


                            Page 10 of 12
                           28th August 2026
                           903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




10.   On a perusal of the application for enhancement of rent,
there are no reasons cited therein to justify the withdrawal of
payment of deposited rents. Applying the principle laid down in
Super Max International Private Limited and Others (supra),
where release of the deposited amounts could be only for reasons
which are exceptional, and stated in the application, and none
exist in the present case, that part of the judgment, directing
release of the deposits would have to be reviewed.

11.   To that extent therefore, the review must be allowed in part,
to the extent that the direction to release and pay to the
Respondent     No.2    rents     deposited        from   01.01.2020   to
01.01.2026 and consequently the direction to remit these
amounts and all further deposit of rent after 01.01.2026, on their
deposit, to the account of the Respondent No.2 shall stand
recalled. he direction issued in the operative part of judgment
dated 18.02.2026 as contained in paragraph 14, as quoted below
shall stand deleted:

      “his amount shall also be remitted by the Registry to the
      account of the Applicant, the details of which are
      mentioned above.”

12.   To the extent that this Review Application is allowed, the
learned Senior Advocate Shri Kantak appearing for the
Respondents, on instructions from Respondent No.2, during the
course of hearing of the Application, had submitted that the
Respondent No.2 would not withdraw the deposit @ Rs.5 lakhs
per month from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2026 and until disposal of

                                 Page 11 of 12
                               28th August 2026
                                                                903-CAREV-17-26.DOC




                                  the Appeal, unless an appropriate application, setting out reasons
                                  is iled by the Respondents.

                                  13.   Considering that the direction in the irst part of paragraph
                                  14 of my judgment dated 18.02.2026, for release of the enhanced
                                  rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month which was lying in the Registry of
                                  the Court has already been released to the account of Respondent
                                  No.2, the Respondent No.2 shall ile an undertaking, signed by a
                                  duly authorised person to the efect that it will deposit this
                                  amount into the Registry of this Court, if the Appellant
                                  ultimately   succeeds    in    Second      Appeal   No.7/2013.   he
                                  undertaking shall be given within a week from today.

                                  14.   Civil Application (Review) No.1090/2026 (F) is disposed
                                  of in the above terms.



                                                                          VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN                                        Page 12 of 12
SINGBAL                                                         28th August 2026
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 03/09/2026 13:55:40