Lrs Of Vimal Chand vs Shri Vardhman Sthanak Vasi Jain ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4839 Raj

[2023/RJJD/016168]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 13/2023

1. LRs of Vimal Chand, S/o Hamirmal Jain Through Its Lrs-

2. Sushila W/o Late Vimal Chand Jain, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh Rajasthan.

3. Sunil Kumar S/o Late Vimal Chand Jain, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh Rajasthan.

4. Anita S/o Late Vimal Chand Jain, Aged About 39 Years, R/ o Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, Presently Residing At Vijaynagar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus Shri Vardhman Sthanak Vasi Jain Savak Sangh, Nimbahera Through Its Chairman Shri Shantilal Maru S/o Bhanwar Lal Jain, R/o Adarsh Colony, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Sandeep Saruparia
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Pushkar Tamini for
                                Mr. Sanjay Nahar



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                 Judgment

18/05/2023

1. The appellant-tenant has preferred the present second

appeal being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated

21.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2,

Nimbahera in Civil Appeal No.03/2020 (CIS no.31/2016) whereby

the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Civil

Judge, Nimbahera in Civil Suit No.147/2005 (CIS NO.45/2000)

decreeing the suit preferred by the respondent-plaintiff seeking

eviction of the appellant-defendant from the suit property on the

ground of bonafide necessity has been affirmed.

[2023/RJJD/016168] (2 of 3) [CSA-13/2023]

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant-

tenant submitted that the original defendant Vimalchand, and

after him, his legal representatives was/are running the

shop in the premise in question since last 39 years and

therefore, need some reasonable time to vacate the shop in

question. Learned counsel submitted that he has instructions not

to press this appeal on merits but reasonable time may be granted

to the appellant-tenant to vacate the suit shop and to handover

the vacant possession of the same to the respondent-landlord.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Pushkar Tamini appearing on behalf of

Mr. Sanjay Nahar, for the respondent-landlord, on instructions,

does not oppose the submissions as made by learned counsel

appearing for the appellant-defendant.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant-

tenant and having perused the judgment and decree of the Courts

below, the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant-

defendant-tenant seems to be reasonable and deserves to be

granted subject to the appeal not being pressed on merits.

5. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant-defendant-

tenant shall handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the

suit shop to the respondent-plaintiff-landlord within a period of

one and a half year from today i.e. on or before 30.11.2024 and

shall, w.e.f. 01.06.2023, continue to pay mesne profit at the rate

of Rs.201/- per month by 15th day of the next succeeding

month or in advance to the respondent-plaintiff- landlord and in

case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of

one and half year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree

of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant-

[2023/RJJD/016168] (3 of 3) [CSA-13/2023]

defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne

profit, if any, and pay the same to the respondent-plaintiff-

landlord within three months from today, if not paid till date,

otherwise the same shall bear interest @9% per annum. The

appellant-defendant-tenant shall not sublet, assign or part with

the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of

anyone else and would not create any third party interest in the

same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same

would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant-tenant shall

furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid

conditions in the trial Court within two months and one copy

thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if

the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not

handed over to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of one and

a half year from today, i.e. upto 30.11.2024, or mesne profits are

not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of

the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff-landlord

shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this

Court.

6. With the aforesaid directions, the present second appeal of

the appellant-defendant-tenant stands disposed of.

7. The stay application and all pending applications stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 13-Vij/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)