ORDER :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners (original landlords) have challenged order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Court of District Judge, Nagpur (Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 303 of 2018, whereby an application for stay of decree filed by the respondent (tenant) has been allowed on the condition that the respondent shall pay an amount Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of the judgment of the trial court till the decision of appeal towards occupation charges of the suit premises. The petitioners contend that the said amount is unreasonably low, considering the market rent that is being fetched by similar properties in the very same building and that, therefore, the aforesaid condition imposed by the appellate Court needs to be modified.

3. The respondent has been a tenant in shop block Nos. 3 and 4 of the ground floor in a building known as Gopal Krishna Bhavan, Jhansi Rani Square, Sitabuldi, Wardha Road, Nagpur for the past more than 40 years. It is the contention of the petitioners that in addition to the said two shop blocks admeasuring about 444 sq. ft. each, area in mezzanine floor is also occupied by the respondent. The rent being paid for the said premises by the respondent was about Rs. 460/- per month for each shop block. The petitioners had filed suit for eviction and possession against the respondent under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, inter-alia, on the ground of bona fide need. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners on 22.03.2018, whereby the respondent was directed to vacate the suit premises within a period of 30 days from the date of the decree.

4. Aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 303 of 2018, before the appellate Court and also filed an application for stay of the decree during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners opposed the application for grant of stay and pointed out that even if stay was to be granted, it had to be subject to conditions. The petitioners relied upon the ready reckoner of the property where the suit shop blocks are located and on that basis, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that even if the decree granted by the trial Court was to be stayed, the respondent ought to be directed to pay occupation charges by taking into account market rent and the ready reckoner placed on record.

5. By the impugned order dated 27.08.2018, the appellate Court granted stay of the decree passed by the trial Court, subject to the respondent paying Rs. 10,000/- per month as occupation charges to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the appellate Court, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

6. Mr. Sunil Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the condition of paying Rs. 10,000/- per month as occupation charges was unreasonably low taking into account the material placed before the appellate Court for determining reasonable amount towards payment of occupation charges by the respondent during the pendency of the appeal. The learned senior counsel relied upon ready reckoner, which demonstrated that the rent at market value of the premises in question would be much higher than what was granted as occupation charges by the appellate Court. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the copies of the lease deeds of the premises given on rent in the recent past, including a property given on rent in the very same building in the year 2017, to contend that the expected quantum of occupation charges in respect of the suit premises was anywhere in between Rs. 1,00,000/- to more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. The learned senior counsel submitted that this material was not referred to by the appellate Court at all while passing the impugned order and that the same was in the teeth of the law laid down by the