Judgment

H.S. BEDI, J.- 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.

3. It is clear from the record that the respondent-plaintiff 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 7-7-2004 stayed the execution of the decree.

4. 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 600 per month 18 years ago should be suitably enhanced and that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 CPC which visualised 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 (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.1 The learned Single Judge accordingly by the impugned order directed that the interim order passed on 7-7-2004 be confirmed sub