1.Heard finally, by consent.

2. The Petitioners-Original Defendant Nos. 2 and 3/tenants have challenged the impugned order dated 30th September, 2008 passed on Exhibit 9 in Appeal No.395 of 2008 in R.A.E.Suit No.975/1640 of 2000 by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, to the extent of fixing the monthly compensation of the flat at Rs.50,000/- p.m. and directing the Petitioner to pay the same till the disposal of the Appeal.

3. The Petitioners’ case is- Prior to 1997-1998, one Laldevi Trust was the owner and the landlord of a building known as "Inder Bhuvan" situated at Pandita Ramabai Road, Mumbai 400 007. The said building consists of the ground and two upper floors.

4. Late F.S.Vakil, the Grandfather of Respondent No.4 was a tenant in respect of Flat No.3 (which was later on numbered as Flat No.2), on the West Side on the First Floor of the said building. The said flat admeasures about 1000 sq.ft., and consists of two bed rooms, hall, kitchen, dining room and two bath cum W.C. blocks. The said building has no lift facilities nor a compound and/or car parking space.

5. In the month of March, 1963, late F.S.Vakil created leave and licence rights in respect of the said flat in favour of Petitioner No.2, and put him in exclusive possession of the said flat. And since then he along with his brother, Petitioner No.1, and their respective family members are in exclusive use and occupation of the said flat.

6. As per the said Agreement, Petitioner No. 2 initially paid the rent/ license fee of the suit premises to the then landlords, Laldevi Trust upto the period ending June, 1997. Thereafter, on Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 acquiring title to the said Flat, the rent of the suit premises was paid to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 upto the period ending December, 1998. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 to 3 did not accept the rent when tendered.

7. On 25/10/2000, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as the landlords of the flat filed R.A.E. Suit No.975/1640 of 2000 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, against the Respondent No.4 and the Petitioners inter-alia contending that Respondent No.4 being the heir of the Original Tenant had illegally sublet the said flat to the Petitioners and accordingly sought a Decree of eviction under Section 16(1)(e) and (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, "Mah.Rent Act").

8. On 03/10/2001, the Petitioners filed their Written Statement refuting the claims and the contentions of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and raised various contentions, both on the facts and the law, and contended that the Petitioners are in exclusive possession of the said flat since March, 1963 and on the Amendment to the erstwhile Bombay Rent Act, 1947, Petitioner No.2 has acquired a status of Deemed Tenant and/or a Protected Licensee and consequently Petitioner No.2 and the members of his family and brother, who are residing with him, are also protected by the Provisions of the Mah. Rent Act. On 24/04/2008, the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the Petitioners and Respondent No.4 to handover possession of the said flat.

9. On 16/06/2008, being aggrieved by the said Decree, the Petitioners filed Appeal No.395 of 2008 under Section 34 of the Mah. Rent Act. On 23/06/2008, the Petitioners’ said Appeal was admitted by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. On the same day, the Petitioners preferred Application being Exhibit No.9, for stay of the operation of the eviction Decree passed by the Trial Court. On 29/07/2008, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed their Affidavit in reply to the said stay application. On 16/08/2008, the Petitioners filed their affidavit in re-joinder.

10. On 17/09/2008, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 prefer an Application for taking on record a report of the Architect dated 12th September, 2008, and inter-alia contended that the said report of the Architect should be considered while determining the market value of the said