The legal point established in the judgment is that tenants are entitled to the refund of the amount deposited in eviction-related proceedings, and the court must consider the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Interim Application is filed by Applicant/Landlord/Original Plaintiff, seeking a prayer to direct the tenant to deposit market rent in this Court pending the hearing and final disposal of the Civil Revision Application.

2. The suit filed by the Landlord for eviction was decreed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the order of eviction tenant filed Appeal before Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. During the pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Bench, the tenant was directed to deposit market rent as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Atma Ram Properties Vs. Federal Motors, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705. However, the Appellate Bench reversed the decree and set aside the eviction decree. Hence, Civil Revision Application is filed by Landlords in this Court u/s. 115 of CPC challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes.

3. The Civil Revision Application was “Admitted” on 29 June 2022 after hearing both the sides. Mr. Sabrad appearing for Landlord, submitted that the landlord has a good case on merits and hence he will succeed in the present Civil Revision Application at the time of hearing. Mr. Sabrad further submitted that the suit was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement and even though the decree was passed by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court has without considering the legal position, reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court. He therefore, contended that it is necessary that the tenant be directed to continue to deposit market rent before this Court. In support of his argument, he cited the Supreme Court judgment of Atmaram Properties (supra).

4. Mr. Jaydeep, responded to the submission made on behalf of Landlord, by raising fundamental objection to the argument, by submitting that the ratio of Atmaram Properties (supra), will not be applicable in the present proceeding, since there is no eviction decree passed against the tenant. The Civil Revision Application, is filed in this court by Landlord challenging the dismissal of suit filed for eviction. Mr. Deo, further submitted that condition cannot be imposed on tenant/Respondent, when the tenant has not come before this Court seeking stay to the execution of decree. Mr. Deo, relied upon the judgment of (a) Niyas Ahmad Khan V/s. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr. reported in (2008) 7 SCC 539 (b) The State of Maharashtra V/s. Super Max International Pvt Ltd. reported in (2009) 9 SCC 772, to buttress his arguments.

Discussion and Conclusion :

5. After the Civil Revision Application filed by Landlord was admitted in this Court, the Landlord has filed this Interim Application, seeking direction to the Respondent/tenant to continue depositing market rent before this Court, as per ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the judgment of Atma Ram Properties (supra).

6. Hence, firstly it is necessary to consider the dicta of Supreme court, in Atma Ram Properties (supra) Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (Supra) held that while passing an order of stay to eviction decree, the Appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would be reasonable to compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by grant of stay order. In the said proceedings eviction was sought on the ground of subletting. The decree of eviction was made out. In an Appeal preferred under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Rent Control Tribunal directed the eviction to remain stayed but subject to the condition that the respondent shall deposit in the Court Rs.15,000/- p.m., in addition to the contractual rent which may be directly paid to the Appellant. Paragraph No.19 of the said judgment reads as under :-

19. To sum up, our conclusions are:-

(1) while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the ap