2025:BHC-AS:50752 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12428 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2022 J.M. Financial Limited ...Applicant In the matter between:

...Appellants Mr. Abbas Abdulali Patel and Ors.

Versus SNEHA J.M. Financial Limited ...Respondent NITIN CHAVAN ***

Digitally signed Ms. Siddhima Kotak a/w Mr. Arpit Kusum Ashok for the Applicant and by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: original Respondent.

2025.11.24

20:56:10 +0530 Mr. Joel Carlos a/w Dhaval Patil with Arshaan Lentin i/b M/s. K. Ashar & Co. for Respondent in IA and Original Appellants in FA.

***

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.

DATE : 21^st NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C. :

1. This is an application filed by Respondent/Defendant in the appeal, seeking following prayer :

“a) Direct the Appellants to pay interest @ 24% p.a. (or such rate as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and reasonable) on the sum of Rs.1,28,51,512/- from 16^th September 1997 till the date of actual payment / realization (Kindly note that this amount of the Security Deposit is in accordance with the refund of Security Deposit amount awarded by the Hon’ble City Civil Court vide its order dated 23^rd February 2017)”

2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this application are as under. The Appellants/Plaintiffs are owners of the suit premises. They filed Suit No. 3491 of 2011 (High Court Suit No. 923/2011) for recovery of possession based on title against present Applicant. The issues involved in the said suit are regarding - (i) leave and license agreement dated 15.09.1994 (between one Mr. Dayabhai Patel (said Dayabhai) and Applicant, being binding on the Appellants, (ii) whether the surrender deed dated 27.11.2007 by the legal heirs of the said Dayabhai was legal and valid and (iii) whether the Applicant is a trespasser. Holding all these issues in negative, the suit has been dismissed. However, operative part of the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.02.2017 provides that ‘the present Appellants at liberty to deposit the security amount’ and that after deposit of such security amount, the present Applicant shall deliver possession of the suit premises. The appeal is already admitted and the same is pending for final disposal.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant made following submissions :

3/1. That the suit premises was initially held by said Dayabhai as tenant of the Appellants, who inducted the Applicant under leave and license agreement dated 15.09.1994, with the permission of the Appellants/owners under written communications dated 13.09.1994.

3/2. That this leave and license agreement, as is clear from its recitals, was executed with a term that on expiry of license or sooner determination, if the licensor (said Dayabhai) is unable to refund the security deposit amount (SD anount) for any reason, the licensee (present Applicant) is not required to handover possession of the premises and shall continue to occupy the same without paying any compensation, till such time the security deposit is refunded.

3/3. That in July 1998, the Applicant had filed Suit No. 2934/98 against the said Dayabhai for refund of SD amount with interest @ 24% per annum. This Court by interim order dated 02.02.2001 had directed the said Dayabhai to deposit the SD amount with 18% p.a. interest. The said suit was compromised under the Consent Terms dated 10.09.2001, where said Dayabhai agreed to refund the SD amount and the Applicant agreed to handover possession and the claim of interest coupled with claim of compensation was referred to a sole Arbitrator.

3/4. That said Dayabhai did not act as per the Consent Terms. Various correspondences ensued, however the Consent Terms remained unexecuted.

3/5. That said Dayabhai expired in 2006 and his relative approached the Applicant with an offer to pay certain interest. This offer did not fructify.

3/6. That on 27.11.2007, the legal heirs of said Dayabhai entered into a surrender deed with the present Appellants/Owners in an attempt to defeat the Applicant