M.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of premises No. 10, Block No. 13, Labour Colony, Naini, District Allahabad. A suit for ejectment was filed against him. It was decreed on 30 -4 -1988. Against this order the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 235 of 1988, Udai Raj v. State of U.P. The appeal has been admitted. An ex parte stay time bound order was also passed on 12 -5 -1988.
(2.) ON 23 -5 -1989, the petitioner moved an application for extension of the stay order granted by the II Additional District Judge, Allahabad. This application was rejected on 23 -5 -1989. The position as it emerges is that against the decree for ejectment passed by the Prescribed Authority the petitioner has filed an appeal before the II Additional District Judge which is still pending but the stay application stands rejected against which the present writ petition has been filed. The consequence would be that the petitioner would be evicted from the premises in dispute. In a case, Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur and others : 1983 (9) F.L.R. 403 (S.C.), the Supreme Court while considering similar point has held: But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted. In that case also the question of eviction was involved.
(3.) RELYING on this principle it was obligatory on the part of the II Additional District Judge while considering the stay matter in a pending appeal to have wanted the stay order.;