ORDER : As parties to these two Revision Petitions are common and the issue pertains to the conditional Order passed by the Learned Trial Court and the consequential Order thereto, the same are disposed off by this Common Order. 2. Heard Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Revision Petitions and Sri P. Anand Seshu, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.1152 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The respondent/plaintiff along with his father filed the said suit for eviction of petitioner/defendant from the suit schedule premises and vacant possession of the same to them and also for future damages at Rs.40,000/- per month from 01.07.2019 till delivery of possession of the premises for use and occupation after terminating the lease and for costs of the suit. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for depositing arrears of rent. As the petitioner/tenant failed to deposit the rent as per the Orders of the learned Trial Court, the defence of the petitioner/defendant was struck off and the suit was decreed by Judgment dated 22.04.2021. The respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.138 of 2021 seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the suit scheduled premises. 4. While the said Execution Petition was pending, the petitioner filed an appeal A.S.No.51 of 2021 and moved I.A.No.404 of 2021 seeking stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the Decree and Judgment dated 22.04.2021. As the respondent/plaintiff is pressing the Execution Petition, despite pendency of appeal and stay application, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.1003 of 2021. Initially, stay of all further proceedings in the Execution Petition was granted by this Court and the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 to vacate the stay Order. A learned Judge of this Court by an Order dated 17.12.2021 disposed of the said Revision Petition, inter alia providing that the appellate Court shall consider and pass Orders in I.A.No.404 of 2021 on the next date of hearing i.e., 27.12.2021, while taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioner/defendant sought time to vacate the suit schedule premises in the 1st week of September and did not comply with the direction of the Court with regard to deposit of arrears of rent. 5. 5. Pursuant to the said Orders in the above mentioned C.R.P, the learned Trial Court had taken up the matter for consideration and by an Order dated 27.12.2021 in I.A.No.404 of 2021 granted interim stay of proceedings in E.P.No.138 of 2021 on condition of depositing costs and payment of rents payable from the date of appeal i.e., 28.08.2021 till date at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per month admitted rent in lumpsum and the arrears of future damages awarded by the Trial Court from the date of Judgment i.e., 22.04.2021 till date in lumpsum into the Court on or before 06.01.2022. The learned Trial Court further directed the petitioner/tenant to pay rents payable every month at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per month on or before 10th of every month till the disposal of the appeal, with a default clause that the interim stay granted by the Court shall stand vacated, if the conditions are not complied with. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.205 of 2022. Further, since the said conditional Order was not complied with and as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Trial Court by an Order dated 06.01.2022 dismissed I.A.No.404 of 2021 and vacated the stay granted on 27.12.2021. Aggrieved by the said Order, Civil Revision Petition No.279 of 2022 was filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the Order dated 27.12.2021 is not sustainable as the same suffers from material irregularities. The learned counsel would contend that the learned appellate Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in a proper perspective in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that so far as payment of rents is concerned, there is no decree by the learned Trial Court and therefore direction for payment of rent is not tenable. The learned counsel would also submit that the appellate Court cannot go beyond the Decree and unless the respondent seeks amendment of Decree, he is not entitled for payment of rents. He further submits that the direction to deposit the arrears of future damages as also payment of rents is untenable. The learned counsel would also submit that the appellate Court cannot go beyond the Decree and unless the respondent seeks amendment of Decree, he is not entitled for payment of rents. He further submits that the direction to deposit the arrears of future damages as also payment of rents is untenable. He also submits that the time for complying with the directions for conditional stay is not sufficient and non-compliance with the directions, which lead to dismissal of I.A by the subsequent Order dated 06.01.2022 is not willful, but as a result of imposing onerous conditions. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petitions by setting aside the Order impugned therein. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Order of the learned appellate Court in imposing conditions for grant of interim stay is in exercise of its discretionary power and the same cannot be found fault with. He submits that in fact, the petitioner/tenant even before filing the appeal filed a Memo in the E.P proceedings, wherein he sought time upto 1st week of September, 2021 for vacating the premises and time upto 1st week of October, 2021 for paying the rents and damages imposed in the Decree by the Trial Court. He further submits that the petitioner contrary to the same, filed the appeal and failed to comply with the conditional Order. Referring to Order XLI, Rule 5 of CPC, the learned counsel also submits that the appellate Court has got ample power to grant any Order by imposing conditions and in the present case, after duly taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner/defendant and the earlier defaults committed by him, the learned appellate Court passed the Order dated 27.12.2021 and the same is valid, warrants no interference, as there is no material irregularity as alleged. He submits that the only intention of the petitioner is to drag on the matter and squat on the property without payment of rents and arrears to the respondent. He submits that there are no merits in the Revision Petitions and urges for dismissal of the same. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the respective counsel. He submits that the only intention of the petitioner is to drag on the matter and squat on the property without payment of rents and arrears to the respondent. He submits that there are no merits in the Revision Petitions and urges for dismissal of the same. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the respective counsel. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition to pay rents payable from the date of appeal as also deposit of arrears of future damages as on the date of Judgment dated 22.04.2021 is onerous. It appears that the learned appellate Court taking the past-conduct of the petitioner/tenant was inclined to impose such a condition. By virtue of the same, this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, as the amount deposited towards arrears of future damages was directed to be kept in F.D.R. Depending upon the result in the appeal, the same can be adjusted towards rents or may be refunded to the petitioner. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is a discretionary Order passed by the appellate Court, while granting conditional stay. This Court finds no material irregularity in imposing the conditions, more particularly, in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, granting 10 days time for complying with the directions, while granting stay is not reasonable. The learned appellate Court ought to have granted sufficient time to enable the petitioner to comply with its directions. 9. In such view of the matter, this Court, while not inclined to interfere with the conditions as imposed by the learned appellate Court, however, deems it appropriate to grant time to the petitioner to comply with the same. Accordingly, time for complying with the Orders of the appellate Court dated 27.12.2021 are extended by two (02) months from today. It is made clear that if the petitioner/tenant fails to comply with the same, within the above said stipulated time or fails to pay the rent every month at the rate of Rs.22,000/- on or before 10th regularly, till the disposal of the appeal, the interim stay stands vacated. The amount directed to be deposited towards arrears of future damages shall be kept in F.D.R as directed by the appellate Court. The amount directed to be deposited towards arrears of future damages shall be kept in F.D.R as directed by the appellate Court. The respondent/plaintiff is entitled to withdraw other amounts deposited in terms of the directions dated 27.12.2021. The C.R.P.No.205 of 2022 is accordingly, disposed of, with the above directions. 10. In view of the Orders passed in C.R.P.No.205 of 2022, the Order dated 06.01.2022 impugned in C.R.P.No.279 of 2022 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.