1. This is the Respondent, landlord's Civil Application. The Civil Revision Application filed by the tenant, is to be heard finally. The Applicant/Respondent has succeeded in obtaining a decree for eviction in both the Courts below. The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Petitioner/tenant ought to be granted an unconditional stay of the execution of the decree for eviction or whether the execution of the decree ought to be stayed only upon certain conditions and, if so, on what conditions.

2. The property admittedly is situated in a prime locality in Mumbai and admeasures 9000 sq. ft. The Respondent has succeeded in both the courts below. Prima-facie, it is not possible to state that the judgments are unsustainable. The premises are occupied by the officers of the co-operative department of the State of Maharashtra. The District Deputy Registrar is Petitioner no.2. In my view, it would be unjust to grant an unconditional stay of the execution of the decree.

3. In Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (1) Supreme Court Cases, 705, the Supreme Court held that while passing an order of stay the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to put the Applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the decree-holder for any loss occasioned by the delay in the execution of the decree by the grant of a stay order in the event of the appeal being dismissed. Indeed, it is also held that the terms should be reasonable. In paragraph 9, the Supreme Court held :- “9. Dispossession, during the pendency of an appeal of a party in possession, is generally considered to be “substantial loss” to the party applying for stay of execution within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code. Clause (c) of the same provision mandates security for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be passed being furnished by the applicant for stay as a condition precedent to the grant of order of stay. However, this is not the only condition which the appellate court can impose. The power to grant stay is discretionary and flows from the jurisdiction conferred on an appellate court which is equitable in nature. To secure an order of stay merely by preferring an appeal is not a statutory right conferred on the appellant. So also, an appellate court is not ordained to grant an order of stay merely because an appeal has been preferred and an application for an order of stay has been made. Therefore, an applicant for order of stay must do equity for seeking equity. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, an appellate court, while passing an order of stay, may put the parties on such terms the enforcement whereof would satisfy the demand for justice of the party found successful at the end of the appeal. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P.1 this Court while dealing with interim orders granted in favour of any party to litigation for the purpose of extending protection to it, effective during the pendency of the proceedings, has held that such interim orders, passed at an interim stage, stand reversed in the event of the final decision going against the party successful in securing interim orders in its favour; and the successful party at the end would be justified in demanding compensation and being placed in the same situation in which it would have been if the interim order would not have been passed against it. The successful party can demand (a) the delivery to it of benefit earned by the opposite party under the interim order of the High Court, or (b) compensation for what it has lost, and to grant such relief is the inherent jurisdiction of the court. In our opinion, while granting an order of stay under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, the appellate