- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr.Rajendra Salecha has produced before this court the keys of the suit premises and also the two cheques of Rs.4,50,000/- each drawn in favour of respondent-Nand Kishore Kachhwaha towards the arrears of rent, pursuant to the impugned order passed by the trial court. The Senior Manager Shri Tara Babu Sogani, Bank of Baroda is also present in the court. The learned counsel Mr. Salecha submits that the appellant was always ready to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the respondent-plaintiff but the respondent was not taking the possession. However, the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. MM Ranjan for the respondent states that the appellant had never shown its willingness or readiness to hand over the possession of the suit premises. Be that as it may, now since the keys of the suit premises have been handed over by the learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Salecha for the appellant, the same is directed to be handed over to the learned Sr. counsel Mr. MM Ranjan for the respondent. The two cheques produced by the learned counsel Mr. Salecha are also directed to be handed over to the learned Sr. counsel Mr. Ranjan. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Salecha that the said two cheques worth Rs.9,00,000/- have been handed over towards the arrears of rent for the period from 18.9.2001 to 31.1.2006, as the appellant had already been given the notice showing willingness to hand over the possession of the suit premises, and that the said two cheques have been given subject to the contentions raised in the appeal. As against that, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Ranjan for the respondent submits that the appellant should be directed to furnish some security for the rest of the amount not paid as per the order of the trial court and also for the interest. Since the appeal has been admitted, and since the appellant-Bank is the Nationalized Bank, there is no need for issuing any direction to the appellant-bank for giving security, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, the execution and implementation of the impugned order dated 5.5.2008 passed by the trial court is stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
(3.) THE application stands disposed of accordingly.;