The court ruled that conditions for stay of execution cannot include mesne profits payments without proper ascertainment, ensuring rights of both parties are preserved during appeals.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.1066 of 2018 in A.S.No.182 of 2018 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri K.R.K.Gargeya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Sunil B.Ganu, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioners herein, who are the appellants in A.S.No.182 of 2018, filed the said appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.884 of 2010 by the learned XVII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 04.07.2018. Wherein, pending the appeal, an application was also filed under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2018. The said application was filed on the ground that the petitioners have good grounds to succeed in the appeal and that their possession over the suit schedule property is protected under Exs.B1 and B2. It was further contended that if the judgment and decree are executed, the petitioners will be dispossessed from the suit schedule property, thereby causing great hardship to them, and hence prayed for grant of stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

4. The respondent filed a counter and vehemently opposed the petition for grant of stay of execution of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It was contended that the petitioners/appellants are in illegal possession of the suit schedule property since 2008 and that they did not place any cogent and acceptable evidence to establish and prove their case before the trial Court. Merely on the ground that the petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule property does not establish their title over the counter-claim schedule property in the absence of any valid title in their favour. It was further contended that in the event of unconditional stay being granted during the pendency of the appeal of a party in possession, the same would result in substantial loss to the party opposing the stay.

5. Having heard both the counsel, the learned Judge considering the contention and rival contention of the both the parties and also the judgment of Atma Ram Properties (P) Limited vs. Federal (P) Limited, (2005) 1 SCC 705 , taking into consideration of the same and that the appellate court came up with terms and directed the appellants to compensate the landlord by payment of a reasonable amount which is not necessarily the same as the contractual rate of rent. The learned judged took a clue from the said judgment applying all the said principles have held that as plaintiff claim mesne profits for use and occupation of the suit schedule premises @Rs.4,000/- per month from 03.02.2010 till delivery of possession of suit schedule property. Considering the same, the petition was allowed and interim stay was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner/appellants appellants are directed to deposit mesne profits/damages @Rs.4,000/- per month from 03.02.2010 to till date and shall continue to deposit the same at the same rate till disposal of the appeal and also to deposit the suit costs. Further it is also directed that on such deposit, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to receive the same by furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Courts, being aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed contending that the learned Judge erroneously gave direction to the petitioner to deposit the said amounts to the credit of the suit and further directed to continue to deposit the same at the same rate and it i