Discretionary stay refusal in eviction proceedings was upheld because no illegality or perversity was shown in revision.

A revision against refusal of stay in eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was not interfered with because the grant of stay is discretionary and revision lies only where that discretion is shown to be illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, or perverse. The petitioner failed to establish any legal infirmity in the lower court's exercise of discretion, particularly where the proceedings had already progressed and possession was stated to have been taken. The interlocutory order refusing stay was therefore sustained, while the main appeal was directed to be disposed of expeditiously on its own merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing stay of the eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The revision challenged only the dismissal of the stay petition. The premises had already been proceeded against under the statutory scheme, possession was stated to have been taken, and the petitioner had not established any legal infirmity in the manner in which the lower court exercised its discretion. Since grant of stay is discretionary, interference is warranted only when the discretion is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to law. No such infirmity was made out.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant stay was upheld and the revision was not interfered with, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned interlocutory order was sustained, while the main appeal was directed to be disposed of expeditiously on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference in revision is not justified against a discretionary order refusing stay unless the exercise of discretion is shown to be illegal, arbitrary, or perverse.

---