SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 2043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MADHAV J.JAMDAR, J.
Katty Minoo Dastur & Anr. - Petitioners 
Versus 
WMT Apparels Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.16359 Of 2025
Decided On : 09-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Cyrus Jal a/w. Mr. Harshavardhan Khambete and Mr. Deep Shah
For the Respondent: Mr. Manu T. Ramchandran i/b. MSS Law Partners

An Appellate Court's imposition of onerous conditions for stay of eviction decrees must be just and reasonable, reflecting equity principles under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order XLI Rule 5 - Tenant's challenge to the eviction decree upheld by Appellate Court - Imposition of conditions for stay, including monthly compensation rateings, was deemed unreasonable and unjust - Appellate Court's reliance on Previn Govind Sharma case was found unwarranted - Limits of Stay Orders specified. (Paras 4, 10, 17, 18)

(B) Jurisdiction and Discretion - Appellate Courts must exercise discretion equitably, without imposing onerous terms - Severance of landlord-tenant relationship upon eviction decree affirmed - Proper balance sought between landlord rights and tenant's appeal provisions, scope defined under applicable laws. (Paras 11, 12, 17)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioners challenged the Appellate Court's order imposing conditions for a stay on an eviction decree for six weeks, pertaining to a Rent Control Case. The Appellate Court directed substantial monthly deposits as interim compensation, considered unreasonable by Petitioners.

Findings of Court:
The imposition of excessive and unreasonable conditions by the Appellate Court was quashed; Petitioners required to deposit nominal amounts instead.

Issues: Whether the Appellate Court exceeded its powers under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC in imposing conditions for stay of the eviction decree?

Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Court's order for deposits was beyond reasonable scope, as the Court is expected to impose only just and equitable conditions in exercise of its discretion during stay applications.

Result: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Appellate Court's order was set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of facts and procedural history of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the eviction decree and stay. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court analysis of applicable laws and previous cases sufficing for decision. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. conditions imposed for stay of eviction decree. (Para 18)
5. final disposition of the writ petition. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Cyrus Jal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Manu T. Ramchandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 10th November 2025 passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai below Exhibit- 34 in Appeal No.50 of 2023 in R.A.E. Suit No.1868 of 2009. By the impugned order, the said application bearing Exhibit-34, seeking stay of six weeks to the eviction decree as confirmed by the learned Appellate Court for the purpose of availing further legal remedy is allowed by imposing certain conditions. The Operative Part of the impugned order dated 10th November 2025 reads as under:

“ORDER

“1. Application (Exhibit 34) is allowed and operation of order dated 10.11.2025 passed in (A1) Appeal No. 50 of 2023 is stayed for period of six weeks on following conditions.

a) The appellants shall deposit Rs. 33,000/- per month from 19.11.2009 till 31.12.2010 as interim compensation in the Court.

b) The appellants shall deposit Rs. 37,000/- per month from 01.01.2011 till 31.12.2012 as interim compensation in the Court.

c) The appellants shall deposit Rs. 41,500/- per month from 01.01.2013 till 31.12.2014 as interim compensation in the Court.

d) The appellants shall deposit Rs. 46,000/- per month from 01.01.2015 till 31.12.2016 as interim compensation in the Court.

e) The appellants shall deposit Rs. 51,000/- per month from 01.01.2017 till 31.12.2018 as interim compensation in the Court.

f) The appellants shall deposit Rs. 56,700/- per month from 01.01.2019 till 31.12.2020 as interim compensation in the Court.

g) The appellants shall deposit Rs. 63,000/- per month from 01.01.2021 till 31.12.2022 as interim compensation in the Court.

h) The appellants shall deposit Rs. 70,000/- per month from 01.01.2023 till 05.03.2023 as interim compensation in the Court and for period of further six weeks from the date of this order.

i) Out of the total amount payable, 50% shall be deposited within two weeks from the date of this order, and the remaining 50% within the following two weeks, failing which the respondents/plaintiffs shall be at liberty to execute the decree.

j) If, within period granted, appellants failed to bring any order, then after expiry of six weeks period, the amount deposited be handed over to respondent which shall be adjusted against mesne profit, if any.

k) The appellants shall file undertaking on affidavit within eight days from today to effect without fail to not part with the possession of the suit premises and will not create any third party interest.

2. Costs in main cause.”

(Emphasis added)

3. Before considering the legality and validity of the impugned order, it is required to note certain admitted factual aspects.

i. The Respondent who is the landlady filed R.A.E. Suit No.1868 of 2009 on 18th November 2009.

ii. On 6th March 2023, learned Trial Court passed the Judgment and Decree of eviction in said R.A.E. Suit No.1868 of 2009

iii. The Petitioner filed Appeal No.50 of 2023 challenging the Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court.

iv. An application seeking stay of the Judgment and Decree dated 6th March 2023 was preferred bearing application Exhibit-6 in Appeal No.50 of 2023 and the learned Appellate Court stayed the execution of the impugned eviction decree till final decision of the said Appeal by order dated 16th October 2023 inter alia on the condition that the Ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top