Dharmendra Singh vs Tarachand B. Kanuga (Died) ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2495 Chatt

                                                                                                NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                           FA No. 164 of 2014

               Dharmendra Singh S/o Lalmani Singh Aged About 40 Years Sky Vision
               A.R. 3, Second Floor, R.D.A. Building, Sharda Chowk, Raipur C.G.,
               Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Appellant/ Defendant No.2

                                                  Versus

          1. Tarachand B. Kanuga (Died) Through His Legal Heirs S/o As Per The
             Hon'ble Court Order Dated 23-08-2021

          1(a) Pramila Kanuga a major widow of late Tarachand Kanuga

          1(b) Vishal Kanuga, aged about 35 years, S/o. Late Shri Tarachand Kanuga

          1(c) Rajesh Kanuga a major son of late Tarachand Kanuga

          1(d) Madhu Godhir a Majior, Daughter of Late Tarachand Kanuga

                 All Resident of Shanti Nagar, Near Shri Ram Mandir, Raipur (CG)

          2.     K.V. Rajshekhar Reddy adult, Son of V. Subha Rao, Businessman, Flat
                 No. A.R. 3 Second Floor, R.D.A. Buiklding, Sharda Chowk, Raipur
                 (CG)

                                                                                   ---- Respondents

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Appellant : Mr. G.D. Vaswani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 18.04.2022

1. The instant First Appeal filed by the defendant No.2 against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 45 A/2013, wherein the trial Court has held that the defendants shall vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and it is also directed that the defendant No. 1 will pay rent of Rs.1.89,392/- from 05.04.2010 to 27.03.2011. The defendant No.2 has preferred the first appeal before this Court under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree passed by trial Court on 24.09.2014.

2. On 30.06.2015, this Court while admitting the appeal had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month before the trial Court till the final hearing of the case, the amount so deposited will not create any tenancy. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 30.06.2015, the appellant has already deposited Rs. 3,16,000/- in CCD of Court on 07.01.2022.

3. Today, when the case is called out for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 3,16,000/- till January 2022 in the CCD of Court. He would further submit that a reasonable time may be granted to vacate the suit premises so that appellant may settle himself in the new accommodation. He would undertake that remaining amount if any will be deposited by the appellant in the CCD of Court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that he has no objection for granting six months time to vacate the suit premises.

5. Submission made by counsel for the appellant seems to be just and proper.

6. On due consideration, six months time is granted to the appellant for vacating the suit premises. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is modified by this Court instead of two months, the appellant be granted six months time to vacate the suit premises. It is directed that the appellant shall vacate the suit premises on or before 17th October 2022 and till he vate the premises he shall pay rent to Respondent No.1. Remaining part of the judgment and decree so far as it relates to present appellant is concerned shall remain intact.

7. With this observation, the instant appeal is finally disposed off.

8. A decree be drawn up accordingly.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Santosh'