Allowed

Laxmi and Ors. v. Smt Shashi Goyal andANR

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2015CW/17497/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed eviction proceedings and issued directions for petitioners to vacate premises within two years subject to filing an undertaking for rent payment, deposit of arrears, and maintenance of peaceful possession.

What did the court decide?

Eviding petitioners to vacate premises within two years from filing of undertaking, payment of arrears plus 9% interest, and advance rent payment until vacating.

Laxmi and Ors. Vs Smt Shashi Goyal andANR — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. CWP No. 17497/2015

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17497/2015

¶6

Laxmi & Ors. vs. Smt. Shashi Goyal & Anr.

¶7

Date of Order: 10^th December, 2015

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Mr. Bipin Gupta, counsel for the petitioner present along with Naresh Chand the tenant. Mr. Anil Upman with

¶10

Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, for the respondents.

¶11

Mr. Bipin Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the site plan (Annexure-7). He has stated that earlier demised property was joint property of family of landlady and subsequently, same has been partitioned between Smt. Shashi Goyal and Santosh Goyal and others. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that landlady had set up a case that 6x4” Baramada (courtyard) in possession of the petitioners is required for personal bona fide necessity of the landlady to construct staircase for enjoying the first floor of the demised property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively referred to the site plan (Annexure-7) to say that there is already staircase available with the landlady and she can construct another staircase from another portion, for enjoyment of her property.

¶12

Two courts below have given concurrent finding that the landlady is best person to adjudge her needs. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been accepted by two courts below. This Court while exercising jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the

¶13

S.B. CWP No. 17497/2015

¶14

2/3

¶15

Constitution of India will not disturb the concurrent finding merely because another view is possible. The impugned judgments rendered by two courts below are neither perfunctory nor perverse, hence, no interference is warranted.

¶16

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present shop is only source of earning livelihood for the petitioner and therefore, sufficient time be granted to the petitioner to make alternative arrangement.

¶17

Mr. Anil Upman and Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the respondents have very fairly stated that in case two years time is granted to the petitioners to hand over possession of the vacant possession of the demised premises that will serve the ends of justice.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that due sanctity ought to be granted to the broad consensus arrived between the parties. Hence, on joint prayer made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is taken on board for final disposal.

¶19

As prayed by the counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by issuing following directions:

¶20

(i) That the petitioners shall file an undertaking before Rent Tribunal that they shall vacate the premises within two years from filing of the undertaking before the Rent Tribunal.

¶21

(ii) The petitioners shall file the undertaking before the Rent Tribunal on or before 4.1.2016.

¶22

(iii) The petitioners shall deposit entire arrears of rent, if due, along with 9% interest.

¶23

S.B. CWP No. 17497/2015

¶24

3/3

¶25

(iv) That the petitioners shall specifically state in the undertaking that they shall pay the rent in advance for each month on or before 7^th day of each month.

¶26

(v) In the undertaking, it shall also be specifically stated that in case the petitioners commit two consecutive defaults, the executing court shall proceed with the eviction of petitioners in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶27

(vi) The petitioners shall also specifically state in the undertaking that they will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises in good condition to the landlord within two years commencing from 4.1.2016.

¶28

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶30

Mak/-

¶31

¶32

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Anil Makawana P.A.

Laxmi and Ors. v. Smt Shashi Goyal andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi and Ors. v. Smt Shashi Goyal andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs Shri Narayan Purohit and Ors.

Jagdish Chandra Pathak andORS Vs State Medical and Healthors

Yogesh Kumar andORS Vs State Finance Departmentors

Siya Ram Gurjar Vs R P S C Ajmer

Jugal Kishore Saini Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Vikas Ranwar Vs State Tourism Departmentors