Dismissed

Surendra Kumar v. Lichhma Devi and Anr.

Rajasthan HC11 May 2018CFA/120/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal arising from a suit for eviction and recovery of mesne profits, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the Court granted the tenant-appellant time to vacate by December 31, 2019, subject to agreeing to enhanced rent, depositing arrears, and submitting an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

The appeal dismissed as withdrawn; granted time to vacate premises by 31st December 2019 if tenant pays enhanced rent, deposits arrears, and submits affidavit undertaking.

Surendra Kumar Vs Lichhma Devi and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR.

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 120 / 2018

¶5

Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Hoshiyarlal, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Mahazan/Maheshwari, Resident of Malsisar, At Present Residing At Ward No. 3, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶6

----Appellant Versus

¶7

Lichhma Devi W/o Shri Boop Singh, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Ward No. 20, Bhadra, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶8

Bhoop Singh S/o Shri Munaram, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Ward No. 20, Bhadra, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.C. Joshi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Suthar on behalf of Mr. Manoj Bhandari.

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

11/05/2018

¶14

This first appeal by the defendant has arisen out of the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits, as filed

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CFA-120/2018]

¶17

by the plaintiffs-landlord wherein, the learned Trial Court, vide its

¶18

impugned judgment and decree dated 15.902.2018 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 21/2013 titled as “Lichhama Devi & Anr. Vs. Surendra Kumar” has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and held the plaintiffs entitled for recovery of possession of the suit shop and directed the defendant to pay Rs. 1325/- per month from 01.02.2011 to 31.05.2013. According to the decree in question, the defendant is required to hand over the possession of the suit shop by 01.06.2013 with a stipulation to pay Rs.1325/- per month for use and occupation of the suit shop.

¶19

Having heard the counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, when this Court found no case for interference in the findings recorded by the learned Court below, the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted, in the alternative, that some time may be allowed to the appellant to vacate the demised premises. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant has been carrying on the business in the suit premises for over 20 years and shall need some time to make alternative arrangements.

¶20

Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellantdefendant, while seeking permission to withdraw the present first appeal, however, submits that the appellant-defendant be permitted to retain the possession of the suit premises for a period of two years, after which, he would hand-over the vacant and peaceful possession of the shop in question to the plaintiffsrespondents.

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CFA-120/2018]

¶23

Mr. Govind Suthar, learned counsel for the respondents, while not opposing the prayer of the appellant regarding granting of time, submitted that appropriate orders be passed in relation to the ‘mesne profits’.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it appears appropriate to allow some time to the appellant-defendant for vacating the suit premises.

¶25

Finding no ground to interfere, this present appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn; however, the appellant-defendant is granted time to vacate the suit premises by 31^st December, 2019 on the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The appellant shall personally submit an undertaking supported by affidavit before the Trial Court, within three weeks from today to the effect that on or before 31^st December, 2019, he shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffsrespondents. He shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the suit premises nor to make any alteration 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.

¶27

(ii) The appellants-defendants shall deposit the arrears of rent and ‘mesne profits’ awarded by the Trial Court for the period ending on 31^st May, 2018, by 30^th September, 2018.

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CFA-120/2018]

¶30

(iii) The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month (Rupees Four Thousand only) to the landlordrespondents for retaining the possession of the suit shop and for use and occupation of the suit premises, month by month on or before 7^th day of the each month. First payment of enhanced amount of Rs.4,000/- shall be payable on 7^th June, 2018.

¶31

(iv) The arrears of ‘mesne profits’ as well as the monthly amount of ‘mesne profits’ directed to be paid henceforth be deposited in Trial Court or in Bank Account of the Respondent No.1. Particulars of the Bank Account be supplied by Mr. Govind Suthar to Mr. R.C. Joshi, within a period of 15 days from today, if the plaintiffs want the amount to be deposited in their Bank Account.

¶32

It is made clear that upon the appellant’s failure to comply with any of the conditions aforesaid or violating any terms of the undertaking, the plaintiffs-respondents shall be entitled to execute the decree forthwith, besides initiating proceedings for Contempt of Court, in accordance with law.

¶33

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. No Costs.

¶34

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶35

/Mohan/S-218

Surendra Kumar v. Lichhma Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar v. Lichhma Devi and Anr.

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

Smt. Pawan @ Pooja Tak Vs Himanshu Tak

Shrishti Sharma Vs Prashant Sharma

Smt. Manju Giri Vs Raju Giri

Smt. Renu Vs Amar Pal

Smt. Sonia @ Ritu Vs Ratnesh @ Sonu

Kavita Vs Anil Kumar