CMPMO No. 436 of 2009 9.7.2009 Present: Mr. Kartik Kumar,Advocate, vice Mr. B. N. Misra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. L. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arjun Lal, Advocate, for the respondent. No ground for interference is made out to grant stay of the execution petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 3.1.2009 the Appellate Authority had stayed the execution of the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. This however was subject to deposit of use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month w.e.f. 1.8.2008 till 31.12.2008 before 10.1.2009 and thereafter continue to pay the same by the 10th of each successive month. The petitioner admittedly defaulted in complying with the orders dated 3.1.2009 and consequently moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to deposit the occupation charges w.e.f. 1.8.2008 upto 30.1.2009. It is the petitioner’s grievance that the Appellate Authority has not passed any order on the said application. -2- Importantly the application dated 4.3.2009 was filed only on 18.3.2009 and the matter is pending before the Appellate Authority. Admittedly no prayer for deposit of use and occupation charges after 30.1.2009 was made in the application. Consequently the petitioner-tenant is in serious breach of the conditional order passed by the Appellate Authority as the use and occupation charges from the month of February 2009 and onwards have not been deposited. As such, no stay in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent can be granted. However, it is expected of the First Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner’s application at the earliest. With the aforesaid observations the present petition is disposed of. The respondent’s application for modification of the order dated 3.1.2009 and seeking further enhancement of the use and occupation charges shall also be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority at the earliest. Dasti copy. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 9, 2009 (PK)