JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. By order dtd. 2/4/2018, the above Civil Revision Application was admitted. By order dtd. 5/11/2020, a learned Single Judge fied monthly compensation to be deposited by the Applicants at the rate of Rs.2,50,000.00 per month as a condition of stay of the eviction decree during pendency of the Civil Revision Application. The relevant portion of said order dtd. 5/11/2020 reads as under :

"13. The only legitimate basis for working out interim compensation in our case appears to be the actual price paid for the suit property (i.e. essentially the land) by Respondent No.19. Respondent No.19 has acquired reversionary right of the lessors in the suit property for a sum of Rs.5.50 crores. Evidently, this has been a concrete deal at arms length between men of commerce; it does take into account or, at any rate, must be presumed to have taken into account, all aspects arising out of the lessee's right to the eiisting structure at the eipiry of the lease. It may safely, at least for our purposes, which, as we have seen above, in any event, involve a certain ad-hocism, be taken as the basis for working out a fair interim compensation. Indeed, it is even Mr. Naidu's submission that interim compensation may be premised on this valuation. In his submission, Mr Naidu has worked out fair return of Rs.2,56,654.00 per month (for 4354 sq. yds., i.e. eicluding the land appurtenant and below the two chawl like structures) by estimating return at 6.5 per cent per annum on the price paid by Respondent No.19 (Rs.5.50 crores). Mr. Naidu, however, terms this amount of Rs.2,56,654.00 to be eiorbitant, without telling us why. (He probably contends so in the light of the judgments of Atma Ram Properties and Previn Govind Sharma, (supra.) Mr. Naidu suggests 50 per cent of this amount (i.e. Rs.1,28,327.00 per month) as a fair return on investment for fiing interim compensation.

14. There is no basis for reducing the amount of fair return to 50 per cent as suggested by Mr. Naidu. The amount is not eiorbitant per se and cannot be said to be so on the basis of the cases of Atma Ram Properties and Previn Govind Sharma. As I have noted above, the multipliers in Atma Ram Properties and Previn Govind Sharma are not benchmarks to be used as precedents for fiing compensation generally. In the peculiar facts of our case, it is this return (Rs.2,56,654.00 per month) which may be termed as a fair return on investment, which the eventually successful party may be said to have lost as a result of the stay on eviction and which may be taken as a reasonable compensation to be fied during the pendency of the CRA as a condition of the stay. There may, at best, be a case for rounding it off to Rs.2,50,000.00 per month.

15. Accordingly, reasonable monthly compensation as a condition of stay in terms of prayer clause (ii) of the CRA is fied at Rs.2,50,000.00. The Applicant shall furnish a security for the arrears of compensation payable from 2/4/2018 till date in the sum of Rs.77.50 lacs by deposit of a fied deposit receipt of like amount endorsed in favour of the Registrar General of this Court with intimation to the issuing bank. Such deposit shall be made on or before 10/12/2020. Compensation payable with effect from today shall be deposited in court on or before 10 day of each succeeding month beginning from December 2020. This amount shall be invested by the Registrar General in Fiied Deposits of nationalized bank and shall abide by further orders to be passed in the CRA. Subject to deposit of FDR and monthly deposits of Rs.2,50,000.00 as ordered above, ad-interim stay of the decree of eviction passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai operating in the CRA is confrmed as interim relief pending hearing and fnal disposal of the CRA."

(Emphasis added)

2. The learned Single Judge has relied on the said transaction of reversionary rights which is of the year 2008. The eviction decree is dtd. 4/5/2017. Thus the relevant date for determinat