PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. HAJARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL Leave granted.

(2.) THE order under challenge has been made on a stay application moved by the tenant whose second appeal is pending in the High court. It is clear from the record that the plaintiff-respondent has succeeded in securing a decree for eviction from both the courts below and the second appeal stands admitted, as already mentioned above. While admitting the appeal, this Court by an interim order dated 7th July 2004 stayed the execution of the decree. By the present application moved by the respondent, a prayer has been made that the mesne profits of the property in dispute which had been let out at the rate of Rs. 6007- per month 18 years ago should be suitably enhanced and that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 5 of the CPC which visualized that reasonable terms which would compensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned for delay in execution of the decree in the event of the appeal being dismissed, should be kept in mind in the light of the judgment of this Court in Atma Ram properties Private Limited v. Federal matters Private Ltd. , [jt 2004 (10) SC 410 ; 2005 (1) SCC 705]. The learned Single Judge accordingly by the impugned order directed that the interim order passed on 7th July 2004 be confirmed subject to the condition that the appellant deposits/pays mesne profit of the property in dispute at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month by the 15th day of each succeeding month. It is this direction which is under challenge in this appeal.