Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHRI SUDHIR GANGADHAR SANKHEversusPADMASHREE ANNASAHEB JADHAV BHARTIYA SAMAJ UNNATI MANDAL

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court fixed interim compensation at Rs.50,000 per month, payable over and above any rent liability.

Summary

The appellant appealed a decree of eviction and filed an interim application seeking fixation of interim compensation for the suit premises pending the appeal. There was a dispute over the exact area of the premises, with the respondent claiming 514.22 sq.m and the appellant claiming 4,616.50 sq.m. Conflicting valuation reports were submitted: the Executive Engineer, PWD Palghar, valued rent at Rs.139 per sq.m (Rs.71,959 per month) while DIGA Consultants valued it at Rs.5 per sq.ft (Rs.23,083 per month). The Court found the lower valuation implausible and, given the area dispute, fixed interim compensation at Rs.50,000 per month, payable from the decree date, with arrears to be paid by 31 December 2026 and continuing thereafter. The interim application was partly allowed and disposed of with the compensation direction.

Issues considered

  • Determination of the appropriate amount of interim compensation for the suit premises during pendency of the appeal
  • Resolution of the dispute regarding the actual area of the suit premises
  • Assessment of conflicting rental valuation reports

Subjects

  • interim compensation
  • suit premises
  • eviction
  • rental valuation
  • area dispute
  • civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                    Sonali Mane                                                   4--IA-369-2024.docx



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           SECOND APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2023
                                                         WITH
                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 369 OF 2024
                                                           IN
                                           SECOND APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2023


                    Padmashree Annasaheb Jadhav

                    Bhartiya Samaj Unnati Mandal                           … Appellant
                             Versus

                    Shri Sudhir Gangadhar Sankhe                           … Respondent



                    Mr. Sharique Nachan a/w Ms. A. Khan i/b Jidicare Law Associates for
                    Appellant in SA and for Respondent in IA.
                    Mr. Rohit P. Karhadkar for Respondent in SA and for Applicant in IA.



                                                       CORAM        : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                       DATE         : 6 OCTOBER 2026.

                    P.C. :


                    1)            The Interim Application is filed for fixation of interim
                    compensation in respect of the suit premises during pendency of the
                    appeal. The Appeal is admitted by Order dated 29 March 2023.



                    2)            The Appellant has suffered concurrent findings on the issue of
                    eviction. There appears to be some debate between the parties about
                    the exact area of the suit premises. As per the Respondent/Plaintiff, the
       Digitally
       signed by
       MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP  Date:
       2026.10.07
                                                    ___Page No.1 of 3___
       11:30:59
       +0530                                           6 October, 2026
Sonali Mane                                                  4--IA-369-2024.docx



suit premises admeasure 514.22 sq.mtrs., equivalent 5,532.65 sq.ft. On
the other hand, it is the contention of the Appellant that the suit
premises admeasure 4,616.50 sq.mtrs.



3)            The Plaintiff has relied upon valuation report dated 31 July
2024 of the Executive Engineer, PWD Palghar, who has determined
rental value in respect of the suit premises at Rs.139 per sq. mtrs and
Rs.71,959/- per month. On the other hand, the Appellant has relied
upon valuation report of DIGA Consultants and Valuers LLP, which
determined the rental return in respect of suit property at Rs. 5/- per
sq.ft. and Rs.23,083/- per month. It is difficult to believe that the rental
return of the suit premises can be as low at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. Even going
by the area of suit premises as indicated in the Appellant's valuation
report as 4616.50 sq. ft. and by applying the rental return indicated in
the report of the Executive Engineer PWD, the rental income in respect
of the suit premises would be in the range of Rs.60,000/-.



4)            Since there is debate between the parties in respect of the
exact area of the suit premises, I deem it appropriate to fix interim
compensation in respect of the suit premises as Rs.50,000/- per month.
Accordingly, the Appellant shall deposit in this Court interim
compensation at Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of the decree i.e.
31 August 2019. The arrears of interim compensation from 31 August
2019 till 31 December 2026 shall be deposited on or before
31 December 2026. Thereafter, Appellant shall continue to deposit
interim compensation every month from 1 January 2027 onwards. It is



                               ___Page No.2 of 3___
                                  6 October, 2026
Sonali Mane                                                    4--IA-369-2024.docx



clarified that the amount of interim compensation shall be over and
above the amount of rent which the Appellant is liable to pay.



5)            With the above directions, the Interim Application is partly
allowed and disposed of.




                                                      [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                               ___Page No.3 of 3___
                                  6 October, 2026


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.