MIR JAMALUDDIN Vs. NAJERA HOSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for both the parties.

(2.) IN the instant revisional application, the petitioner being the appellant of the Ejectment Appeal No. 25/2013 has questioned the propriety of the Order No. 7 dated 29th November, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Sealdah, while staying the operation of the Ejectment Execution Case No. 20 of 2013 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Sealdah.

(3.) HIS learned counterpart, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was inducted in respect of 592 sq.ft. and urged that the learned court below while passing the order impugned considered the pros and cons of the matter in question and came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - per month towards the occupational charges. Drawing my attention to the averments as contained in the body of the plaint of Ejectment Suit No. 234 of 2005, he submitted that his client tried to file the suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of defaulter in payment of rent as well as reasonable requirement in respect of the tenanted premises located in such an area where the rate of rent is very high and the opposite party should not be asked to take a lenient view particularly when his client has been denied to enjoy the fruit of the decree for the time being. Clarifying the provision of Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he urged that mere preferring an appeal does not operate as a stay on the decree or order appealed against but he admitted with all fairness that the appellate court has discretion to grant an order of stay subject to the conditions as enumerated in Rule 5(3) of Order XLI of the Code.