HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11333 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent- landlord. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:- "(i) Allow the stay applications dated 04.03.2025 and 20.08.2025, filed in SCC Revision No. 12 of 2025 and direct the respondent-landlord not to evict the petitioner-tenant from the tenement in question, until full and final disposal of SCC Revision No. 12 of 2025: M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewellers Vs. CA Kriti Tandon, by Learned Additional Distriet Judge, Court no. 8, Kanpur Nagar; (ii) Stay further proceedings of the Execution Case no. 14 of 2025: CA Kriti Tandon Vs. M/s Mehta Sai Das Jewellers, pending before Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 filed at the instance of the petitioner, is pending before the revisional court. She submitted that revision has been admitted on 8.1.2025 but no interim order has been granted. She Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : Prakhar Tandon Mehta Sai Das Jewellers Through Its Proprietor, Mr. Suman Bahl .....Petitioner(s) Kriti Tandon .....Respondent(s) submitted that respondent-landlord has initiated execution proceeding, as such, appropriate direction be issued for the expeditious disposal of the pending revision and till the disposal of revision the interest of the petitioner-tenant should be protected. She placed the certified copy of the order-sheet of the pending proceeding in order to demonstrate that revision has been admitted and the same is pending before the revisional court since 6.12.2024. 4. On the other hand, Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that no interference is required in the matter as the Judge, Small Causes Court has passed the order for ejectment and damages against the petitioner-tenant. He submitted that the petitioner is not cooperating in the proceeding, as such, no interim protection should be granted in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that after filing of the instant petition, petitioner-tenant has filed a transfer application before the court concerned for transferring the pending proceedings to another court on the basis of certain allegations, which only indicates that petitioner-tenant is avoiding the proceeding of the pending revision. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 filed by the petitioner has been admitted and the same is pending for disposal. 7. Since the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has been admitted on 8.1.2025 and pending for disposal before the revisional court, as such, the interest of justice require that pending revision should be decided on merit, expeditiously, imposing certain conditions on the revisionist. A227 No. 11333 of 2025 2 8. This Court in the case reported in 2007 (102) RD 498, Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector, Bijnor and Others held that the interim protection be granted during pendency of appeal / revision if the order under appeal and revision has serious civil consequences. Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the judgment is relevant which is as follows: "4. It is well settled that once an appeal or revision is entertained by a higher Court against an order having civil consequences stay normally should be granted to avoid swinging pendulum unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded finds that there is no case for grant of stay as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand v. Raza Buland Sugar Industries." 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 16.11.2006 is hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Appellate Court is directed to disposal of the appeal of petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him and till the disposal of appeal as directed above, parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession over the land in dispute." 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the revisional court/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Kanpur Nagar to decide the S.C.C. Revision No.12 of 2025, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. It is further directed that the revisionist shall immediately withdraw the transfer application filed by him before the court concerned, so that the aforementioned S.C.C. revision can be decided on merit. It is further directed that till A227 No. 11333 of 2025 3 the disposal of the S.C.C. Revision No.12/2025, the petitioner- tenant shall not be evicted from the premises in question, subject to deposit of 50 % of the decreetal amount before the revisional court within a period of 4 weeks from today. In case of non-compliance of the condition imposed in this order, the interim protection granted by this Court shall automatically withdrawn. September 19, 2025 C.Prakash A227 No. 11333 of 2025 4 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad