POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed at the instance of the tenants. S. C. C. Suit No. 13 of 1981, Km. Damyanti v. Roop Narain and others was instituted on 6. 3. 1981 for ejectment and arrears of rent. 3. After a written statement was filed, suit was dismissed in default on 22. 4. 1988. A restoration application was moved on 12. 8. 1988, which was allowed and suit was restored on 28. 9. 1996. The tenants preferred a Civil Revision No. 178 of 1996 under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against the order allowing restoration application of the plaintiff/respondents. The said revision was dismissed on 15. 12. 1999. Subsequently, proceedings could not continue in the intervening period between 17. 2. 2000 to 24. 4. 2000 on account of strike of the lawyers. 4. No application was moved by the plaintiffs bringing to the notice of the Court that defendant No. 10 Sona Devi is dead and her legal representatives are already on record. But this application was moved on 17. 5. 2000. An objection was filed to the aforesaid application stating therein that some of legal representatives were not on record and they are necessary to be impleaded as a party. The said objection was rejected on 14. 8. 2000 and an application for setting aside abatement of the suit on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents was allowed on 14. 8. 2000. This order was once again challenged in Second Civil Revision No. 156 of 2000. The IVth Additional District Judge, Faizabad, dismissed the revision on 29. 5. 2007, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. 5. Grievance of the petitioners-tenant is that while dismissing the revision, the Additional District Judge fixed rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000 with a direction that difference in the rent is payable w. e. f. 6. 3. 1981 up till date of judgment in the revision, i. e. , 29. 5. 2007. While doing so, the revisional court placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P.) Ltd. , (2005) 1 SCO 705. 3. 1981 up till date of judgment in the revision, i. e. , 29. 5. 2007. While doing so, the revisional court placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P.) Ltd. , (2005) 1 SCO 705. The Apex Court held that grant of stay is equitable in nature, therefore, depending on the facts of a given case, an appellate court while passing an order of stay can very well impose such terms and conditions, which would satisfy the demand of justice. It was held that the power to grant stay in an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 5, C. P. C. is discretionary, therefore, on equitable consideration, rent could be enhanced and certain conditions can very well be imposed. What weighed with the revisional court while enhancing rate of rent was that the shop was in tenancy of the tenant since the year 1961, rate of rent after lapse of such a long period has considerably increased, whereas the present suit instituted as far back in the year 1981 is not proceeding for one or other reason. The landlord is getting a meagre amount of Rs. 100 per month. 6. Submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that principle laid down by the Apex Court in Atma Rams case (supra) is not applicable in the instant case since this revision arises out of S. C. C. suit instituted for payment of arrears of rent and enhancement made w. e. f. 6. 3. 1981, i. e. , date on which suit was instituted, is uncalled for and excessive during pendency of the suit before the Judge, Small Causes Court. This enhancement unilaterally will finally have a far reaching effect in calculating damages or mesne profit etc. 7. Sri S. K. Mehrotra, advocate, has placed another decision of the Apex Court in Anderson Wright Co. u. Amar Nath Roy and others, (2005) 6 SCC 489 , where the Apex Court interpreted ratio of Atma Ram case (supra ). This enhancement unilaterally will finally have a far reaching effect in calculating damages or mesne profit etc. 7. Sri S. K. Mehrotra, advocate, has placed another decision of the Apex Court in Anderson Wright Co. u. Amar Nath Roy and others, (2005) 6 SCC 489 , where the Apex Court interpreted ratio of Atma Ram case (supra ). The view taken by the Apex Court was that once decree for eviction has been passed, in the event execution of the decree is stayed, the appellant can be put on such reasonable terms as would in the opinion of the appellate court be reasonable compensation to the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree on account of grant of stay, specially when the appeal was dismissed. In the present case, the suit is still continuing, there is no decree and, therefore, tenant could not be saddled with an increased amount of rate of rent, which is ten times of what the tenants are paying on the basis of Atma Rams case. 8. I have gone through the aforesaid decisions. The Apex Court in fact followed principle laid down in Atma Ram case (supra) and had enhanced rate of rent from the rate of Rs. 15 per square feet for an area of 5,678 square feet in the S. L. P. preferred against a judgment for ejectment, confirmed by the High Court. 9. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the landlord, I am of the view that pendency of the instant writ petition will not yield any fruitful result. Counsel for the respondents is also not willing to file counter-affidavit as he has advanced argument in support of the judgment. The judgment of the revisional court dismissing the revision and confirming the judgment dated 14. 8. 2000, whereby substitution application was allowed calls for no interference whatsoever. It is apparent that previously once a revision was preferred against an order restoring the suit, which was kept pending for a considerable period and this is secpnd time when the revision was preferred in the year 2000 after allowing the substitution application. It is evident that the suit is not proceeding and it is pending since the year 1981. It cannot be disputed that the tenant lias adopted delaying tactics all along by challenging every order and getting the proceedings delayed. It is evident that the suit is not proceeding and it is pending since the year 1981. It cannot be disputed that the tenant lias adopted delaying tactics all along by challenging every order and getting the proceedings delayed. Proceedings in the instant Civil Revision No. 156 of 2000 were also pending since last seven years. 10. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that order of the revisional court does not call for any interference. The writ jurisdiction being an equitable jurisdiction, therefore, the equities are liable to be balanced while granting a relief to either party. The revisional court enhanced the rate of rent only after taking into consideration the present prevalant rate of rent, proceedings are pending since the year 1981, therefore, taking into consideration all the aspects, I am of. he view that the petitioner is entitled to only a slight relaxation in the impugned judgment. Limited modification in the order of the revisional court is that the tenant will be liable to deposit rent/damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month w. e. f. 18. 8. 2000, i. e. , the date on which civil revision was filed. Arrears from the aforesaid date shall be deposited within a period of six weeks. 11. The petitioners shall file an undertaking before the Judge, Small Causes Court within a period of fifteen days from today that the entire arrears will be deposited within the aforesaid period and the Judge, Small Causes Court after recording undertaking shall proceed to decide the suit. 12. I also clarify that enhancement of the rent made by the revisional court and upheld in this order is only a tentative opinion and it should not be treated to be a determination of the actual amount, which the tenant may be held liable for payment. It is only to ensure that the landlord should not be made to suffer any further on account of delay, which is caused in the final decision. 13. It is made clear that S. C. C. Suit No. 13 of 1981 shall be decided finally within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. No undue adjournment shall be granted to either party unless and until compelling circumstances exists to do so that too, only after recording reasons in writing. No undue adjournment shall be granted to either party unless and until compelling circumstances exists to do so that too, only after recording reasons in writing. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. .