Rajasthan High Court
Ramotar Saini S/O Shri Ganeshilal ... vs Umesh Sharan Son Of Shri ... on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 233/2021
Ramotar Saini S/o Shri Ganeshilal Saini, Aged About 62 Years,
R/o Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Umesh Sharan,
2. Govind Sharan (since deceased)
2/1. Sunita Devi W/o Late Shri Govind Sharan,
2/2. Ankit
2/3. Mudit
2/4. Hahirat Sons Of Late Shri Govind Sharan,
3. Ashok Sharan Son Of Shri Raghvendra @ Mahaveer
Sharan, All R/o Mohalla Buchaheda Kasba, Kotputli,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Bhardwaj
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
07/03/2022
This appeal has been filed by appellant-defendant-tenant
(hereinafter referred to as 'tenant') against judgment and decree
dated 16.11.2021 passed by Additional District Judge No.3,
Kotputli Jaipur District, Jaipur in Appeal No.44/2021 dismissing the
appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2012
passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kotputli, District Jaipur in
Suit No.159/2002 whereby and whereunder suit filed by
respondents-plaintiffs-landlord has been decreed and directed the
tenant to vacate the shop in question and hand over the
(2 of 3) [CSA-233/2021]
possession of the same within a period of two months, to pay due
rent Rs.2,100/- only along with interest @6% per annum till the
date of filing the suit, Rs.350/- per month with interest @6% per
annum from the date of filing the suit till date of handing over
possession, and Rs.15,882/- deposited in court by tenant were
directed to be adjusted.
Heard learned counsel for both parties.
During course of arguments learned counsel for the tenant
submits that the tenant would be deprived of source of income if
he vacates the shop in question pursuant to impugned judgments.
He however, under instruction of his client, submits that the
tenant would not press this appeal if he is allowed to continue in
possession of shop in question up to 31.03.2024, so that the
tenant may make alternative arrangement for his shop.
Counsel for landlords with instruction of their clients does not
oppose the prayer of counsel for tenant and submits that if
impugned judgments dated 05.12.2012 and 16.11.2021 are
upheld landlords would have no objection with continuing the
possession by tenant only up to 31.03.2024.
In view of above, this second appeal is disposed of as
under:-
(i) The tenant shall be entitled to continue in
occupation and use of the tenanted premises in
question till 31st March, 2024, subject to condition that
he would hand over the vacant possession of the
premises in question to landlords on or before 31 st
March, 2024.
(ii) The tenant shall deposit the arrears of rent as
determined by the courts below within a period of two
months from today and continue to pay the rent
(3 of 3) [CSA-233/2021]
@Rs.350/- per month as agreed mesne profit up to
March, 2024.
(iii) The tenant shall not alienate or otherwise create
third party right, or hand over possession of the
tenanted premises in question to any other person."
Further, tenant shall submit an undertaking incorporating the
aforesaid conditions before the trial court within a period of thirty
days, from the date of this order with an advance copy to the
landlord. In case the tenant fails to submit the undertaking as
aforesaid, and/ or breaches the conditions of this order, the
landlords shall be entitled to initiate immediate execution of
judgment and decree to obtain possession of premises in issue
forthwith in accordance with law and may also initiate proceedings
of contempt for breach of undertaking.
Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
