- (1.) Heard learned counsel for parties on stay application.
(2.) Learned counsel for defendant-appellants submits that second appeal has already been admitted, therefore, judgment & decree of eviction passed by both the courts below be stayed during its pendency. However, he does not dispute that this court can award mesne profit under order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC in view of decision of Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., 2005 1 SCC 705, which has further been followed in the case of Anderson Wright & Company v. Amar Nath Roy,2005 2 CCC 318, and by the three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors., 2005 5 SCC 531 and Crompton Greaves Limited v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 11 SCC 547, which, according to him, could be anywhere between Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2500/-.
(3.) Learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent submits that since both the courts below have decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity, therefore, when second appeal is admitted, it may not be necessary to stay execution of such judgment and decree; he, therefore, submits that prayer for interim relief be declined. In the alternative, his prayer is that this court has been taking into consideration the factum of length of tenancy which in present case is more than 39 years old and premise that has been rented out to the defendant-appellants is in the size of 10'x 13', and situated in the heart of the city at Khajanewalon-ka-Rasta, Jaipur and, therefore, its present rental value could not be less than Rs. 20,000/- per month.;