M/S Jud Cement LTD. And Anr vs. Dhananjoy Banik And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court decided to grant a stay on the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated May 24, 2022, subject to certain conditions. The Rs. 30 lakh already deposited by the appellants before the learned Trial Court was permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-plaintiffs/decree holders upon application, proper verification, and furnishing of a bond. Crucially, the appellants were directed to continue paying the monthly rent of Rs. 3,00,550/- (excluding GST) on or before the 15th of every month in equal proportions to the accounts of the plaintiffs. Failure to comply with this condition would result in the automatic vacation of the stay without further court reference, allowing the decree holders to proceed with execution. Liberty was also granted to the respondents to file a separate application for enhanced rent if any condition for enhancement arose during the appeal's pendency. The issue of the admissibility of the alleged admission was not definitively decided but was implicitly acknowledged as the basis for the stay.

Facts

This case involves an application filed by M/s Jud Cement Ltd. and another (appellants) under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking a stay on the operation of a judgment and decree dated May 24, 2022. This decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge, No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 27/2020. The suit pertains to eviction and recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,47,23,100/-. The appellants have already deposited Rs. 30 lakh before the learned Trial Court. The core dispute revolves around the admissibility of an alleged admission by the defendant tenant, which formed the basis of the eviction and recovery decree.

Key Issues

1. Whether the operation of the judgment and decree dated May 24, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 27/2020, should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. The appellants argued for a stay, highlighting the substantial amount deposited and the pendency of the appeal. The respondents sought to uphold the decree. The primary contention for the appellants was that the decree was based on an alleged admission whose admissibility was disputed. The respondents' arguments, if any, are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, beyond their appearance and representation.