P. C. :- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This petition impugns the order dated 10-2-2008 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay, whereby the petitioners have been ordered and directed to deposit and continue to deposit compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- per month, in addition to the monthly rent and permitted increases till the decision in the Appeal as a condition to the grant of stay to the execution of the decree and liberty has been granted to the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited towards monthly rent and permitted increases as per the order of the trial Court.

3. The suit premises is a flat comprised of two bed rooms with servant's room and attached toilet in a building known as Victoria Terrace, 3rd Victoria Cross Lane, Byculla, Mumbai - 400 027 admeasuring 1250 sq. ft. carpet area. The suit was filed by the respondents, who are the landlords of the suit building for eviction of the petitioners, who are tenants, from the suit premises, essentially on the ground of bona fide requirement which suit came to be decreed. The matter was carried in Appeal by the petitioners. It is in this appeal that an Application came to be filed by the petitioners in the form of Interim Notice for stay of the execution of the decree pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, wherein the impugned order came to be passed.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that while allowing the prayer of stay of the execution of the decree, the Appeal Court was not justified in imposing the condition of deposit of the amount of compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- per month by the petitioners. It is his contention that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month in addition to rent and permitted increases would be too exorbitant and the petitioners would in the event of inability to pay the same, have to vacate the suit premises and they would be deprived of their statutory right to appeal. It is submitted that the suit was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement for her personal use and occupation and therefore it is not as if the respondent is to give the suit premises on leave and license to 3rd parties and the Appeal Court has erred in fixing compensation of Rs. 15,000/- per month which was arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive. He further submitted that the petitioner was paying a sum of Rs. 645/- per month and suddenly he is now required to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month by the impugned order. It is his contention that even otherwise the suit premises cannot fetch more than Rs.5,000/- per month and the building is more than 100 years old and is in a dilapidated state. The learned Counsel has produced photographs to show the condition of the suit building. It is further submitted that the petitioners have a fair chance of success in the Appeal as the respondent has in his possession another flat in the suit building and therefore there was no bona fide need of the suit premises of the respondent, which the trial Court has failed to appreciate.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a recent unreported decision of the Apex Court in case of Niyas Ahmad Khan vs. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan and anr, in Civil Appeal No. 3372 of 2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18453/2006) dated 5th May, 2008. He invited my attention to th~ observations of the Apex Court in the said decision which reads thus -

"... In writ petitions filed by tenants, while granting stay of execution of the order of eviction pending disposal of writ petition, the High Court has the discretion to impose reasonable conditions to safeguard the interests of the landlord. But even in such cases the High Court cannot obviously impose conditions which are ex facie arbitrary and oppressive thereby making the order of stay illusory."

He further pointed out the portion in the said decision, which reads as follows -

:"...Where the High Court chooses to impose any conditions in regard to stay, such conditions should not be unreasonab