Thakurdas vs Lrs Of Yahaya Ali ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1922 Raj

[2023/RJJD/005946] (1 of 2) [CW-19726/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19726/2022

Thakurdas S/o Sh. Avatram, Aged About 67 Years, Shop No. 29, Ajanta Opticles, Ashwini Bazar, District Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Lrs Of Yahaya Ali, S/o Late Sh. Gulam Abbas Through His Lrs

2. Smt. Hamida Bano W/o Late Sh. Yahaya Ali, Kharol Colony, Udaipur (Raj.).

3. Imtiyaaz S/o Late Sh. Yahaya Ali, Kharol Colony, Udaipur (Raj.)., Presently Residing At United States Of America.

4. Smt. Shahnaz W/o Sh. Shaukat Lai D/o Late Sh. Yahaya Ali, Kharol Colony, Udaipur (Raj.).

5. Smt. Gulnaz W/o Sh. Ali Asgar , D/o Late Sh. Yahaya Ali, Kharol Colony, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Smt. Neetu Makhija and Mr. Deepanshu Makhija (petitioner's wife and son - present in person)

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

22/02/2023

It is informed that the petitioner is a diabetic patient and is

unable to travel, and therefore, he has authorized his wife and son

to appear on his behalf.

The petitioner's wife Smt. Neetu Makhija and son Mr.

Deepanshu Makhija are present in the Court and they categorically

undertake that the premises in question shall be vacated on or

before 28.02.2024.

[2023/RJJD/005946] (2 of 2) [CW-19726/2022]

Upon such undertaking, which is accepted by this Court, the

petitioner shall be required to vacate the premises in question on

or before 28.02.2024.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four

weeks.

In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the impugned

judgment and certificate dated 10.11.2022 (Annex.16) passed by

the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in Rent Appeal No.20/2014

(CIS No.85/2014) and impugned judgment and certificate dated

19.05.2014 (Annex.6) and 08.08.2019 (Annex.14) passed by the

Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Eviction Petition No.83/2006 and

70/2014 shall remain stayed. The status quo, in regard to the

petitioner's possession over the shop in question, as it exists

today, shall be maintained by the parties.

It is needless to say that the present order has been passed,

in light of the aforementioned undertaking given on behalf of the

petitioner before this Court, and thus, in case such undertaking is

not complied with or adhered to by the petitioner, the present

order shall cease to exist, and accordingly, the respondents shall

be free to take appropriate recourse as available to them under

the law.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 220-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)