Rajasthan High Court
Firm Goodwala Bros And Ors vs Mahaveer Prasad on 23 September, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 138/2004
1. Firm Goodwala Bros. Modiya Ka Godam, Kedal-Ganj,
Alwar.
2. Anil Kumar S/o Lalta Prasad, R/o Goodwala Bhawan,
Merha Tiyabad, Alwar.
3. Sunil Kumar S/o Lalta Prasad, R/o Goodwala Bhawan,
Merhatiyabas, Alwar.
4. Smt. Sita Devi W/o Lalta Prasad, R/o Goodwala Bhawan,
Merhatiyabas, Alwar.
----Appellants
Versus
Mahaveer Prasad S/o Late Shri Hajari Lal, R/o 1/22 Aravali Vihar,
Alwar.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Siddharth Bapna
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R K Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
23/09/2022
1. Appellants-defendants have preferred this second appeal
against judgment and decree dated 20.01.2004 passed by the
Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar (Rajasthan) in Civil
Regular Appeal No.43/2003, affirming the judgment and decree
dated 30.04.2003 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge
(Sr. Division) No.1, Alwar, in Civil Suit No.81/2002 whereby
plaintiff's suit for eviction was decreed in his favour.
2. Having faced with the concurrent findings of fact in respect
of impugned decree for eviction of rented premises three go-
(2 of 3) [CSA-138/2004]
downs, but in backdrop of fact that parties were in partnership
and the rented premises is in possession of appellants since long,
counsel for appellants, on instruction of his client, who is present
in person, prayed that if some reasonable time is granted to
vacate and hand over the possession of rented premises to
respondent, he will not press this second appeal, on merits.
3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that if the
impugned decree for eviction, based on the ground of default, is
sustained and appellants withdraw their second appeal, he has no
objection in granting some time to vacate the suit premises,
subject to enhancement of rent/mesne profits for future period.
4. It has been informed that appellants are paying rent/mesne
profits @ Rs.850/- during course of the second appeal, which is
pending since 2004 & amount of mesne profits was not increased
during this second appeal. This Court does not deem it just and
proper to enhance rent/mesne profits, when the second appeal
itself is being withdrawn with prayer to grant some time to vacate
the suit premises.
5. In view of above, the second appeal is disposed of in
following terms:-
"(i) Appellants-tenants are allowed to continue in possession
of rented premises upto 31.12.2024, subject to condition that
they shall vacate and hand over possession of rented premises
to landlord on or before 31.12.2024.
(ii) Appellants-tenants would pay arrears of mesne profits, if
any, till September 2022 within a period of eight weeks, and
from October 2022 to 31.12.2024 shall pay mesne profits @
Rs.850/- per month regularly, in the bank account furnished
by respondent-landlord, until vacation and handing over
possession of rented premises to the respondent-landlord.
(iii) Appellants-tenants shall not alienate or otherwise create
third party right or hand over possession of rented premises in
question to any other person.
(iv) Appellants-tenant shall furnish an undertaking
incorporating aforesaid conditions, before the trial court within
(3 of 3) [CSA-138/2004]
a period of four weeks, from the date of this order with an
advance copy to landlord."
6. In case appellants fail to submit the undertaking, as
aforesaid, and/or commit breach of conditions of this order,
respondent-landlord shall be entitled to initiate immediate
execution of judgment and decree to obtain possession of rented
premises in issue forthwith, in accordance with law, and may also
initiate proceedings of contempt for breach of undertaking.
7. Stay application as well as any other pending application(s),
if any, stand(s) disposed of.
8. Record of courts below be sent back.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/76
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
