JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present writ petition may be disposed of at this stage without calling for counter affidavit, specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today. 3. The 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar while granting the release application on 5th May, 2009 had fixed Rs. 4,600/- per month as damages for pendenti lite and future use. Against the release order, the petitioner who is the tenant filed an appeal no. 109 of 2009 under Section 23 of Act No. 13 of 1972. Along with the memo of appeal he also filed an interim stay application. The Appellate Court has granted conditional interim stay order dated 23rd January, 2010. It? has been provided that petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as rent during the pendency of the appeal. It has been recorded that according to the report of the Engineer and the Circle Rate applicable, the rent of the premises in question would work out to Rs. 9, 233/- and therefore, a rent of Rs.9,000/- per month was reasonable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such fixation of rent at the interim stage is not called for, it is? also exorbitant. He submits that authority granting the release application found that the sum of Rs. 4,600/-? per month was just and fair as damages for use and occupation of the premises subsequent to the termiantion of tenancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was little or no justification for interfering with the said rate fixed by the prescribed authority on an appeal filed by the tenant, so as to enhance the same at the interim stage by just double the amount. 5. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the rent fixed while granting the interim order is based on the fair market value and this Court may not interfere with the same. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 7. I am of the? opinion that since the appeal against the release order is preferred as a matter of right and that the authority considering the release application itself had found that the sum of Rs. 7. I am of the? opinion that since the appeal against the release order is preferred as a matter of right and that the authority considering the release application itself had found that the sum of Rs. 4,600/- was fair and just for use and occupation of premises in question after termination of the tenancy, the? order of the appellate court increasing the said rent while granting the interim stay, to just double the amount fixed by the first court appears to be exorbitant. Accordingly the Court holds that in the facts of the present case, the amount of damages fixed by the authority? should have been permitted to be paid during the pendency of the appeal and effort should have been made to decide the appeal at the earliest. The observations made above shall not prejudice the rights of the appellate authority to determine the compensation for use and occupation of the premises for any period subsequent to the release order, at the time of disposal of the appeal finally. 8. The present writ petition is therefore allowed and the order of the appellate authority is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall ensure payment of Rs. 4,600/- per month towards use and occupation of the premises during the period his appeal remains pending before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is requested to consider and decide the appeal at the earliest possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.