Important Point— court cannot determine the exact amount of compensation only on the basis of the valuation report submitted by both the parties.

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. By these two civil revision applications, the petitioners have impugned a common order and judgment dated 7th January, 2014 allowing Appeal No. 454 of 2004 filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein and dismissing Appeal No. 44 of 2011 preferred by the original defendant nos. 1, 2, 2(A), 2(B) and 2(C). The petitioners in the Civil Revision Application No. 345 of 2014 were original defendant No. 3 in the suit. The petitioners in Civil Revision Application No. 716 of 2014 were original defendant nos. 1 and 2(A) to 2(C). The respondent nos. 1 to 3 in both the civil revision applications were the original plaintiffs in the suit.

2. Both the matters are placed on board for confirmation of the ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 20th August, 2015 and for determination of reasonable compensation.

3. The original defendant nos. 1, 2, 2(A) to 2(C) were claiming to be the tenants of the suit property consisting of the ground floor with a garage, servant quarter and open court yard at the rear of the bungalow by name Hari Kunj. The respondent No. 3 claimed to be the sub-tenant in respect of the suit property.

4. Some time in the year 1971, the original plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 inter-alia praying for eviction from the suit properties on various grounds. The defendant nos. 2-A to 2-C and defendant No. 3 were subsequently impleaded as party defendants. The trial Court framed various issues. By an order and judgment dated 12th and 15th March, 2004, the learned trial Judge decreed the said suit against the original defendant nos. 1, 2-A to 2-C and directed those defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. the premises on the ground floor with a garage, servants quarter and open Court yard at the rear of the plaintiffs' building known as Hari Kunj, situate at 46-A, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400 026. The learned trial Judge however, dismissed the said suit against the defendant No. 3. The learned trial Judge determined the standard rent of the suit premises at Rs. 1000/- per month and ordered an enquiry insofar as mesne-profit is concerned under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Being aggrieved by the said common order and judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge, the original plaintiffs filed an appeal (454 of 2004) in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai insofar as the suit against the defendant No. 3 came to be dismissed by the learned trial Judge is concerned. The original defendant nos. 1 and 2- A to 2-C also filed a separate appeal (44 of 2011) before the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai inter-alia challenging the decree passed by the learned trial Judge against them. By a common order and judgment dated 7th January, 2014 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, the appeal filed by the landlords (454 of 2004) came to be allowed with costs and the judgment and decree dismissing the suit against the original defendant No. 3 is set aside and the suit came to be decreed against all the defendants. By the said order and judgment, all the defendants, including defendant No. 3 are directed to deliver possession of the suit premises to the original plaintiffs on or before 7th May, 2014. Insofar as Appeal No. 44 of 2011 preferred by the original defendant nos. 1, 2-A to 2-C is concerned, the same is dismissed. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai ordered for an enquiry into the mesne-profit under order 20 Rule 12 of C.P.C. for span from the date of decree till possession is delivered to the original plaintiffs.

6. Being aggrieved by the said common order and judgment dated 7th January, 2014, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, the original defendant No. 3 filed Civil Revision Application No. 345 of 2014 in this Court. The original defendant nos. 1, 2-A to 2-C filed Civil Revision Application No. 716 of 2014 in this Court. By an order dated 20th August,