Partly allowed

Tara Chand v. Jai Prakash

Rajasthan HC1 May 2014CSA/74/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant extra time to vacate the suit premises by March 31, 2016, pending conditions regarding deposit of arrears and usage. The appellant's withdrawal of the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, but the stay application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted time until March 31, 2016, to vacate; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; stay application dismissed.

Tara Chand Vs Jai Prakash — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: J U D G M E N T :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.74/2014

¶5

Tara Chand vs. Jai Prakash

¶6

Date of Judgment :: 01.05.2014

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶9

Mr. O.P. Mehta, for the appellant. Mr. Suresh Shrimali, for the respondents.

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

After attempting to make submissions for sometime on the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be granted extra time for vacating the suit premises.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties regarding grant of extra time to vacate the suit premises.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is running the Chemist Shop in the suit premises since 1977 and he may be granted time till 31st March, 2016 for vacating the suit premises.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for grant of time. It was submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1996; a meager sum of Rs.451/- per month is being paid as rent and the same also is in arrears and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of extra time. If any extra time is granted, the appellant should be made to pay reasonable mesne

¶15

¶16

profit.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, it appears appropriate to allow time to the appellant to vacate the suit premises by 31^st March, 2016.

¶18

In view of the above, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks withdrawal of the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. The stay application is also dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time to vacate the suit premises by 31^st March, 2016 on the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) the appellant shall submit an undertaking supported by affidavit before the trial court within 3 weeks from today to the effect that on or before 31^st March, 2016 he shall handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-respondent. He shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the suit premises nor to make any alternation and not to assign/sublet or in any manner part with possession to any other person and not to put the premises to any use other than the present use and not to cause any nuisance.

¶20

(ii) the appellant shall deposit within three weeks the arrears, if any, of the rent/mesne profit and of the decreetal amount and till March, 2016 shall continue to pay to the landlord the amount for use and occupation of the suit premises @ Rs.4,000/- per month or deposit the same in the saving bank account of the respondent month by month on or before 15^th day of the next month. The respondent or learned counsel for the respondent will give the details of the bank account, in which, the arrears of

¶21

¶22

rent or mesne profit/month to month mesne profit will be deposited, to the appellant or counsel for the appellant within a period of two weeks from today.

¶23

(iii) it is made clear that in case the appellant does not comply with any of the aforesaid conditions or violate any terms of the undertaking, then it will be open for the respondent landlord to get the decree executed forthwith in accordance with law.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶26

PKS-100

Tara Chand v. Jai Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Chand v. Jai Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitri Bai Vs Kaloo Lal

Smt.Tara and Anr. Vs Vijay Raj and Ors.

Madan Lal Vs Bhabhut Mal and Ors.

Panni Devi Vs State through D.C.Sri Ganganagar and Ors.

Shantilal Vs Hari Singh and Ors.

Om Prakash Vs Bunty @ Arun