Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Under O. XLI R. 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, execution of the decree of eviction passed by Civil Judge (JD), Sujangarh, District Churu on 15.12.2012 in Civil Original Suit No. 28/2010 titled as Krishna Kumar vs. Mohan Lal & Ors. was stayed in the following terms:

^^;fn vihykFkhZ ,d yk[k :i;s dh tekur i`Fkd ls bl vk'k; dh v.Mj Vsfdax ds lkFk is'k djs fd tc Hkh vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] lqtkux< U;k;ky; esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfä gksxh vFkok mä U;k;ky; dk vfrfjä dk;ZHkkj fn;s tkus ij ewy vihy dh fu;fer lquokbZ dh izFke nks isf'k;ksa esa vihy dh cgl dj ysus vkSj ;fn vihy dk fu.kZ; vihykFkhZ ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gS rks fu.kZ; dh rkjh[k ls ,d ekg esa oknxzLr ifjlj dks fjä dj izR;FkhZ dks dCtk lqiqnZ dj nsxkA lkFk gh vihy is'k djus dh fnukad ls oknxzLr ifjlj dk fjä dk dCtk lqiqnZ djus rd dh vof/k dk 10 gtkj :i;s ekfld dh nj ls vUr%dkyhu ykHk ¼feUlizksfQV½ ds :i esa izR;FkhZ dks vnk djsxkA**

2. The petitioner-tenant Mohan Lal has challenged the veracity of the order dated 23.7.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge, Churu (the then officer of the link Court of Addl. District Judge, Sujangarh). During the hearing of this writ petition, on 1.8.2013 it was ordered by this Court that "the petitioner may not be dispossessed from the rented premises, provided he deposits mesne profits at the rate of rupees five thousand per month from today". This order when passed, was supposed to be operative only upto 19.8.2013 but the interim stay order has been continued since then.

3. In the petition, the petitioner has argued that the agreed rent of the shop in question was only Rs.208 and paise 33 per month only, so imposing the condition of making payment at the rate of rupees ten thousand per month as mesne profits from the date of filing of appeal is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and without any evidence. The petitioner has argued that the respondent-plaintiff did not file any reply to the stay petition in the court of Addl. District Judge, Churu and he had also not led any evidence regarding rental value of the shop in question, so the arbitrary order should be quashed. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that an undertaking of rupees one lac was also demanded from him and no sufficient time was given to submit the undertaking and further only one month's time has been given to him to vacate the premises if the appeal is decided against him. The petitioner submits that all these conditions are harsh and arbitrary and biased in favour of the landlord. The petitioner relies upon he following ruling:-

(1) State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 722 = 2010(2) RLW 1263 (SC).

In this case it was held that, no doubt the court can stay execution of the order on terms including a direction to pay monthly rent at a rate higher than contractual rent, but the court should also make provisions for the situation when the tenant's appeal is allowed and eviction decree is set aside. In that event, naturally, the status quo ante would be restored and the tenant would be entitled to get back all the amounts that he was made to pay in excess of the contractual rent. That being the position, the amount fixed by the Court over and above the contractual monthly rent, ordinarily, should not be directed to be paid to the landlord during the pendency of the appeal. The deposited amount along with he accrued interest, should only be paid after the final disposal to either side depending upon the result of the case. In case for some reasons the Court finds it just and expedient that the amount fixed by it should go to the landlord even while the matter is pending, it must be careful to direct payment to the landlord on terms so that in case the final decision goes in favour of the tenant the payment should be made to him without any undue delay or complication.

On the other hand, the respondent relied upon the following rulings:

(1) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., (20