JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

The Petitioner is a licensee, the 1st respondent the licensor- Company, and the 2nd respondent its Director. In fact, the present licensor's predecessors entered into a leave and license agreement with the petitioner on 1st October 1998. The licenced property is an industrial shed, admeasuring 4000 sq. ft. The rent then fixed was at Rs.6000/- per month, with Rs. 34,00,000/- as the refundable deposit. The leave and license agreement shall be renewed for 7 terms. Each term coming to five years, the total lease period would be 42 years.

2. But in 2008, the licensor predecessor, that is the original licensor, filed L.E. Suit No.71/84 of 2008 and secured an eviction decree on 15th April 2013. The eviction was on the grounds that the licensee did not come forward to have the license period renewed despite the licensor's readiness.

3. Aggrieved, the licensee filed an Appeal No.41 of 2013 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai, under Section 34 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act,1882. The Appellate Bench invoked Order 41 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code,1806 (CPC), and stayed the execution of the decree subject to the licensee's depositing Rs.10,000/- per month as interim compensation. Then, the licencee challenged the Appellate Bench's order, dated 31st October 2013, before this Court in Writ Petition No.2826 of 2014. Through its order, dated 13th March 2018, this Court remanded the matter. It directed the Appellate Bench to consider the parameter fixed in the Supreme Court's Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705, case and decide afresh the interim compensation.

4. In fact, on remand, the Appellate Bench considered the issue and, on 31st July 2018, passed a fresh order of conditional interim stay: in the place of Rs.10,000/- per month, it fixed Rs.1,25,000/- per month as the monthly compensation.

5. Once again, aggrieved, the licensee filed Writ Petition No.9374 of 2018, complaining that the amount fixed is excessive. On the other hand, the licensor filed Writ Petition No.13388 of 2018, complaining that the amount fixed is low. Initially, this Court, through its order dated 5th December 2018, refused to stay the Appellate Bench's order. Then, the licensee took the matter in SLP before the Supreme Court. Though the Supreme Court refused to interfere with that order, it has, however, given an opportunity to the petitioners "to apply for modification of the impugned order" provided a case to that effect on facts is made out.

6. On the strength of the Supreme Court's order, dated 5th April 2019, the licensee pro se applied for "modification." If we skip the later developments, eventually both parties have agreed to argue the matter finally, so this Court could dispose of both the writ petitions. Then, the licensee has engaged Adv. Shri Shariqh Nachan. Submissions:

Petitioner:

7. In the above factual background, Shri Shariqh Nachan, the learned counsel for the licensee, has submitted that once the matter was remanded, the Appellate Bench has taken a diametrically opposite view. It has straight away raised the interim compensation manifold-from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- per month. First, he has pointed out that the order suffered from non-application of mind. To support his contention, Shri Nachan has taken me to page 9 of the impugned order and contended that the Appellate Bench erroneously observed that the leased property was an open land and that it was let out for commercial purpose. Neither is correct. According to him, the property, in fact, is an industrial shed, and the purpose of license, too, is industrial. He has also drawn my attention to page 13, where the Appellate Bench has observed that the leave and license agreement contained a clause for annual increase of license fee @20%. Even that one, according to Shri Nachan, is erroneous because the leave and license agreement contained no clause of escalation.

8. Shri Nachan, second, has tak