Uttarakhand High Court
Shri Robin Grover vs M/S Prayag Colonizer on 20 September, 2024
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
2024:UHC:6801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
20th SEPTEMBER, 2024
CIVIL REVISION NO.61 of 2024
Shri Robin Grover .....Revisionist
Versus
M/S Prayag Colonizer .....Respondent
Counsel for the Revisionist : Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan,
-Defendant Advocate.
Counsel for the : Mr. Rishab Ranghar
Respondent-plaintiff Advocate.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The present Revision under Section 25 of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has been filed
challenging the judgment and decree dated
23.04.2024, passed by learned Judge, Small Cause
Court/Ist Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, District
Dehradun in SCC Suit No.17 of 2021, "M/S Prayag
Colonizer Vs. Robin Grover", whereby, the learned
Judge has decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff
for recovery of possession, rent and mesne profit with
other consequential relief.
2. Heard Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel
for revisionist-defendant and Mr. Rishab Ranghar,
learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff.
2024:UHC:6801
3. Admit.
4. Supplementary affidavit dated 17.09.2024,
filed by the revisionist, is taken on record.
5. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate, submitted
that by filing the said supplementary affidavit, the
revisionist has sought two years' time to vacate the
suit property.
6. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate, further
submitted that the revisionist will pay the entire
outstanding rent, as directed by the learned trial court,
to the respondent within four weeks' from today and
the revisionist also undertakes that he would
continuously pay the occupational charges to the
respondent, as directed by the learned trial court, and
further undertakes not to demolish the suit property
and not to sub-let the same.
7. Mr. Rishab Ranghar, Advocate, has
submitted, on instruction, that the respondent has no
objection if the revisionist is granted one year time to
vacate the suit property.
8. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate, agrees with
the said submission of Mr. Rishab Ranghar, Advocate.
2024:UHC:6801
9. In view of the said submissions of the
parties, the revisionist may not be vacated from the
suit property till 30.09.2025.
10. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate, has
submitted that the revisionist had paid Rs.1,90,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand) to the respondent
as security amount. Mr. Rishab Ranghar, Advocate,
submitted that the respondent shall return the said
amount to the revisionist by 30.09.2025.
11. With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, the present Revision (Civil Revision No.61 of
2024) is disposed of accordingly.
12. The revisionist is directed to vacate the suit
property and hand over the vacant possession of the
suit property to the respondent by 30.09.2025. In case
of default in payment, the revisionist shall be liable to
vacate the suit property even before 30.09.2025, but,
in accordance with law.
13. Consequently, the impugned judgment and
decree dated 23.04.2024 are modified accordingly.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt:20.09.2024
NEHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3f008e9a4a8038ee7326b08
b2d0e018b01be753f014836d27, postalCode=263001,
BISHT
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=3D89DC33779FB9677068452F32DE6BA
960BFE64D819EE44CA9CCE487B2FE0F92, cn=NEHA
BISHT
Date: 2024.09.20 20:50:46 +05'30'
