NANU ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD THR ITS DIRECTOR MR SANKALP SANDESH NAIKversusTAJDIN JAVERBHAI MAVANY (SINCE DEC) REP. THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ANR

2026:BHC-GOA:307


          Suzana

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA



                     MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2026
                                          IN
                             SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2013

                   Nanu Engineers Private Limited,
                   A Company incorporated under the
                   Companies Act, 1956, Having its
                   Head office at House No. 15/1448,
                   '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-Hill, Borda, Margao, Goa
                   403 602.
                                                                         ...Applicant
                                                                (Original Respondent No.2)
                                    IN

                   Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited               … .... Appellant
                                 versus
                   Tajdin Javeribhai Mavany and Anr.                 … Respondent.



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

                   Mr Nikhil Dhumatkar, Advocate for the Respondent
                   (Original Appellant).


                               CORAM               : VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

                               DATED               : 18th FEBRUARY, 2026.


                                                 Page 1 of 15
                                              18th October, 2025
ORAL ORDER:

1.     This is an application seeking enhancement of rent hitherto

deposited on a monthly basis by the Respondent/original

Appellant in Second Appeal No.7 of 2013.


2.     The Second Appeal filed by the Respondents was admitted

on 23.07.2014. The Second Appeal is directed against the Decree

of eviction dated 31.05.2012 passed by the District Court at

Margao by which the original Appellant has been evicted from a

land    admeasuring     1092    sq.    metres   in   the   city   of

Margao. Admittedly, the suit land is used by the original

Appellant for running a fuel retail outlet for dispensing petrol,

diesel and other petroleum products. It is also not in dispute that

the suit property where the petroleum outlet is in the heart of the

city of Margao.


3.     After the Second Appeal was admitted, this Court by an

Order dated 23.07.2014 had directed the Appellant, during the

pendency of the Appeal, to pay monthly compensation of

Rs.25,000/- to the original Plaintiff. The present application

seeks enhancement of this compensation and claims that the fair



                             Page 2 of 15
                          18th October, 2025
market rent which the Appellants would have to pay considering

the present market conditions is Rs. 6,00,000/- per month.


4.    The claim of compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-per month has

been made on the following basis:


     (a) The Applicant relies upon a report dated 22.12.2025 of

     one Mahendra S. Kakule, an Engineer, which opines the

     present market rent to be Rs.76,44,000/- per annum or

     Rs.6,37,000/- per month;


     (b) The Applicant has relied upon a Deed of Sale dated

     21.02.2019 of a land admeasuring 1929 sq.metres of an

     open land under Chalta No.87 of P.T. Sheet No.189, which

     is contiguous to the suit property which bears Chalta

     No.148 and 86 of P.T. Sheet No.189 of City Survey,

     Margao.


5.    The application has been opposed by the Appellant on the

following basis:


     (a) The Appellant has relied upon a Valuation Report of

     one Kailas Kothavale, Engineer, which is dated

     06.12.2015, which calculates the fair market value of the
                            Page 3 of 15
                         18th October, 2025
     land as Rs.5,24,00,000/-, on which basis, the return of

     investment has been calculated at the rate of 6%, leading

     to a rent per month of Rs.2,67,540/-.


     (b) The affidavit-in-reply of Territory Manager (Retail),

     the Appellant has stated that the monthly revenue

     generated from the petrol pump is Rs. 4,00,000/- per

     year.


     SUBMISSIONS:


6.    Senior Advocate Shri Kantak appearing for the Applicant

has advanced the following submissions:


     (I) It was submitted that the enhanced rent as fixed by

       this Court by Order of 23.07.2014 was Rs.25,000/- per

       month and since more than 10 years have elapsed,

       there is a clear rise in the market rents which can be

       charged for the suit property and it is used for that

       period. Learned Senior Advocate takes me through

       the Deed of Sale dated 04.06.2019, which is referred

       to in the Valuation Report and submits that if one

       considers the market value of the land on the sale

                            Page 4 of 15
                         18th October, 2025
   instance for the year 2019, and takes its present

   market value in the year 2025, the rate per square

   metre of the sale instance would be Rs.76,200/- per

   square metre. He also takes me through the Zoning

   Certificate issued by the Planning Authority which

   certifies that the suit property is in a central

   commercial zone, as is the property in the sale

   instance.


 II. He further submits that considering a conservative

   return on investment for the suit property, of 6% of the

   investment per annum, the fair market rent would

   work out to Rs.6,37,000/- per month.


III. Reliance was placed on the two Judgments of this

   Court in Rukhsana Khalid Ghaswala & Anr.

   v/s. M/s. Mahendra Builders & Ors. in Writ

   Petition No. 14241 of 2023 dated 02.01.2024 and on a

   Judgment dated 27.09.2024 in Writ Petition No.8537

   of 2023 in the case of Safset Agencies Private

   Ltd., v/s. Riddhi Rahul Kumar Gosalia; on the

   basis of these Judgments, it was submitted that the

                         Page 5 of 15
                      18th October, 2025
         return on the investment of built-up premises or of a

         land, is required to be calculated at 6% of the market

         value of the premises or land.


7.   Opposing these submissions, Mr. Nikhil Dhumatkar

appearing for the Appellant has taken me through the Valuation

Report      submitted    along    with       the   affidavit   of   the

Appellant. Placing reliance on a Judgment of this Court dated

01.04.2021 in Writ Petition No.805 of 2021 in the case of

Madhukar          Hiswankar         v/s.        Bharat    Petroleum

Corporation Ltd., to contend that it is the Court's discretion,

considering the income generated from the property of the

Appellant to fix the enhanced rate. He submits that considering

the income generated from the fuel station run on the suit

property, the enhanced rent should not be more that

Rs.2,67,000/- per month, on calculating the return on

investment even at 6% of the market value of the land. According

to the learned Counsel, the market value of the land on which the

Appellant’s petrol pump is running, is Rs.49,000/- per square

metre.




                              Page 6 of 15
                           18th October, 2025
8.    The first consideration for deciding the enhanced rent

would be the fact that the last rent was enhanced in the year 2014,

where the rent fixed at Rs.25,000/- per square metre. One of the

factors that would have to be considered is that the suit property

is located in the heart of the City of Margao and obviously has a

high commercial value. The sale instances produced by the

Applicant is of a land which admeasures 1929 sq. metres which

is adjacent to the suit property. This Sale Deed is of the year

2019, and if one calculates the present market rate even on a

conservative enhanced rate of 6% per annum, its present market

value calculated from 2019 would be Rs.14,70,00,000/- which

would be roughly Rs.1 lakh more per year and its present market

value would certainly work out to over Rs.1 lakh per square

metre. The Valuation Report submitted by the Applicant pegs

the market value of the suit property, taking an enhancement at

the rate of 5% per annum on the value of the contiguous plot in

the year 2019 as Rs.15,28,80,000/- or with a value of

Rs.1,39,616/- per square metre.


9.    In Rukhsana Khalid Ghaswala & Anr. (supra), on

exhaustively considering the case law on the methodology to be

adopted for calculating the market rate of a premises or land and
                             Page 7 of 15
                          18th October, 2025
the manner in which enhanced rent is required to be arrived at,

this Court has made the following observations in paragraphs 26,

30 and 34.


    “25. As regards the Defendant's valuation report of 30th
    August, 2023, the valuer has adopted three methods of
    valuation. Firstly, by comparable instances of leave and
    license in the vicinity, secondly, on the basis of reasonable
    return on the value of property and thirdly on the basis of
    letting rate method adopted by MCGM. By the first method
    of comparable instances, five instances were taken into
    consideration out of which three pertains to smaller premises
    admeasuring from 330.3 sq. ft. to 2000,70 sq.ft. for which the
    license fees ranged from Rs.110 to Rs.134 per sq.ft. per
    month. The valuation report notes that the smaller premises
    commands high rates than larger premises and the other two
    instances whereof large office premises admeasuring about
    8,686.00 sq.ft. and 8,408.80 sq.ft. with the license fee being
    at the rate of 140 per sq.ft. per month. The valuation report
    records that these premises are corporate offices located in a
    far better building in a better locality and considering the
    difference in the condition and location and the use of the
    premises, the monthly compensation payable for the
    premises was assessed at 50% of the prevalent rate of the
    office premises in "Construction House" i.e. at Rs. 70/- per
    sq. ft.

    26. The second method adopted was reasonable return of the
    fair market value of the premises. The valuer considered the
    rate per square meters for the commercial premises @
    Rs.3,61,500/- and rate per square meter for open/developed
    land @ Rs.1,64,930/-. Thereafter the difference was arrived
    at Rs.1,96,570/-. By applying the prescribed percentage of
    15% the depreciated rate was arrived at Rs.1,94,416/-. and the
    depreciated rate per sq.ft. was arrived at Rs.18,062/- and
    with the reasonable return at 6%, the monthly compensation
    was assessed at Rs.90/- per sq. ft.
                             Page 8 of 15
                          18th October, 2025
30. The method of instances of leave and license agreements
of similar based properties cannot be adopted as both parties
have not placed cogent material of comparable instances.
Either the areas differ, or the location differs or condition of
building differs. The letting out rate of MCGM cannot be
considered as indicator of prevalent letting out rate. The
Ready Reckoner rate arrived at by both the parties is the same
and the only difference is the depreciation factor which is
applied. As such, in my opinion, the method of return of
investment on the fair market value of the property based on
the Ready Reckoner rate can be adopted for the purpose of
computation of the monthly compensation. Comparison of
the report of 16th June, 2022 of the Plaintiffs and the report
of 30th August, 2023 of the Defendant indicate that as far as
the Ready Reckoner rate is concerned both the valuers have
arrived at the rate without land of Rs.1,96,570/-. Thereafter
the Plaintiffs have considered the depreciation factor at
0.30%. Whereas the defendants have calculated the
depreciation factor at 0.15%.

By adopting this method and dividing the value by 150 times,
the Plaintiffs have computed the monthly compensation at
Rs.16,64,032/- whereas the Defendant No. 1 has assessed the
return on investment at 3.5 % and has computed the monthly
compensation at Rs.4,15,200/-. In my opinion, the return of
3.5% p.a. is not a reasonable return, whereas the rate of
return of 8% p.a. is on the higher side. A return of 6% p.a. on
the fair market value would be reasonable rate of return. The
admitted position is that the building has been constructed in
the year 1908/1915 and as such, the depreciation factor to be
applied is 85%.

31. Taking into consideration the valuation report of the
Plaintiff and the Defendant the rate of land is Rs.1,64,930/-
per square meter and for the structure is Rs.3,61,500/-.
Deducting the rate of land from the rate of the structure the
rate without land is Rs.1,96,570/- per sq. mtr. which is
common in both the valuation report. The Depreciation
factor to be considered is the maximum depreciation of 85%

                          Page 9 of 15
                       18th October, 2025
as per the valuation report of the Defendants which has not
been disputed by the counsel for the parties as the age of the
suit building is about 115 years. Applying the depreciation
factor of 85%, the rate comes to Rs.1,64,930/- Rs 1,96,570 x
15% = Rs.1,64,930/- + Rs 29,485.50/(ie. Rs.1,94,415/- per sq.
mtr

32. Considering the built up area at 1114.80 square meters the
value of the property works out Rs 21,67,33,842/- (Rupees
Twenty One Crores Sixty Seven Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand
Eight Hundred Forty Two Only). Applying the rate of return
@ 6% pa. the monthly compensation comes to Rs
10,83.669.21/-.

33..

34.     Adopting the method of return on investment @ 6%
p.a. on the fair market value of the land, the reasonable
monthly compensation is computed at Rs.10,80,000/-, as a
condition of stay during the pendency of the Appeal. As
regards the contention about the low turnover of the
Defendant, it needs to be noted that the Defendant’s valuer
has adopted the same method and arrived at figure of
Rs.10,79,973.65/-. The Defendant’s valuer has considered
the area at 7201.36 sq.mtrs. as the suit premises layout
consumes large areas by passages and common areas
resulting in low actual usable area. For this, support is taken
from MCGM’s licenses granted for the guest house. The
decree of eviction is passed in respect of the suit premises and
the monthly compensation is to be assessed at the rate at
which the premises can be let out by the landlord. For that
purpose, the actual usable area cannot be the basis as the
entire premises could be let out by the landlord if the tenant
had vacated. The licenses granted by MCGM cannot form the
basis for computing the area which could be let out. The
landlord could have let out the premises to a tenant carrying
on some other business utilising the entire area. The
Defendant’s valuation report taking into consideration the


                         Page 10 of 15
                       18th October, 2025
      actual usable area and applying factor of 40% for common
      area has no basis.”

      This Court has held that the method of calculating the fair

market rent on the basis of instances of Leave and Licence

Agreements or Rent Agreements in the vicinity is one such

method, but where this is not available, the Court can adopt the

method of calculating fair market rent on the basis of method of

return on investment. It has further gone to appreciate the best

rate at which such return should be calculated and has concluded

that a rate of 3.5% per annum would be too low while a rate of

8.5% per annum would be too high and has chosen to peg the

enhancement at 6% per annum on the return on investment.


10.    A similar view has been taken by this Court in Safset

Agencies Private Ltd. (supra), which would apply to the facts

of the present case.


11.    In the present case, even the Appellants have accepted that

6% of the return on investment ought to be the rate for

calculation, but have disputed the market value of the land. The

Valuation Report produced by the Appellant refers to a Lease

Deed of a plot of land on which the Appellant has a fuel

dispensing Station at a distance of 6-7kms outside the City of
                            Page 11 of 15
                          18th October, 2025
Margao, located at Dicarpale which is at the periphery of the

Salcete Taluka. The location of this plot is obviously not an urban

area, and falls in village and cannot be considered as a

comparative instance to value the rent for the suit property. The

Report has been furnished by the Appellant after having full

knowledge of the Sale instance relied upon by the Applicant in

the Valuation Report produced by the Appellant, i.e. of a plot

contiguous of the suit plot which has a value of Rs.

Rs.15,28,80,000/- in the year 2019. In my opinion, therefore, I

would have to consider sale instance of the year 2019 as the basis

for arriving at a valuation of the present market rent that the suit

plot would fetch.


12.   Considering the value of the sale instance of the year 2019,

the Valuation Report, considered the valuation of the suit plot

based on the value of the sale instance in the year 2019 and pegged

the same at Rs.15,28,80,000/- for the year 2019. On the basis of

the aforesaid market value of the suit plot, the value of the suit

plot would roughly work out to Rs.1,40,000/- per square metre in

the year 2025. This, in my opinion, would be the correct basis for

calculation and I accept the same. On the current market value of

the suit property, I would calculate the return on investment at
                             Page 12 of 15
                          18th October, 2025
the rate of 5% per annum, which works out to Rs.76,44,000/- per

annum and therefore Rs.6,37,000/- per month. However,

considering the claim of the Appellant as to the monthly revenue

generated from the property, and in order that the rent payable

per month should not be oppressive, I round off the rent payable

by the Appellant to a sum at Rs.5,00,000/- per month.


13.   Consequently, I allow the application and fix the monthly

rent payable by the Appellant at Rs.5,00,000/- per month. The

Applicants    have    claimed      the      enhanced   rent   from

23.07.2014. However, there is no material placed along with the

application to decide the rent claimed for all those years and the

only material before me is the sale instance of the year

2019. Accordingly, I direct that the Appellants deposit the rent at

the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per month, commencing from

01.01.2020. The arrears of the rent at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/-

per month shall be deposited within a period of 60 days from

today, i.e. the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per

month from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2026, and shall be deposited

thereafter every quarter at the aforementioned rate.           The

Respondent/original Appellant shall deposit the monthly



                            Page 13 of 15
                          18th October, 2025
compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- fixed by this Court along with

GST at the rates as may be applicable.


14.   At this stage, the learned Advocate for the Applicant

submits that the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per

month under Order of this Court dated 23.07.2014 has been lying

in the Registry of this Court for all those years, and necessary

orders be passed to permit the Applicant to withdraw the

same. Considering that the enhanced rent is otherwise due to the

Applicant, given that the Appellant has been occupying the suit

property during the pendency of the Appeal, the Registry of this

Court is directed to make the payment of all the rents deposited

by the Appellants from first date of deposit to till date, at the rate

of Rs.25,000/- per month directly into the account of the

Applicant, details of which are given below:


       “Nanu Engineers Private Limited,
        HDFC Bank, Margao Branch,
        Current Account No.: 50200031600330
        IFSC No.: HDFC0000037.”

      In addition, on the Appellant depositing the enhanced rent

arrears per month from 01.01.2020 till 01.01.2026. This amount

shall also be remitted by the Registry to the account of the



                             Page 14 of 15
                           18th October, 2025
                           Applicant, the details of which are as mentioned above. The

                           Application stands disposed of.




                                                                         VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                                                      Page 15 of 15

Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
                                                    18th October, 2025
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 20/02/2026 19:00:54