Disposed

Ram Swaroop v. Chanda Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC28 Nov 2018CFA/373/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal regarding eviction and mesne profit for a shop in Churu, the High Court did not decide on merits. Instead, the appeal was disposed of by emphasizing the parties' agreement: the appellant must vacate vacant possession by 31.12.2019 and pay arrears of rent, waiving mesne profits, subject to an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to hand over vacant possession by 31.12.2019 and deposit arrears of rent; mesne profits waived upon compliance.

Ram Swaroop Vs Chanda Devi and Ors. — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 373/2017

¶3

Ram Swaroop Son of Moti Lal Ji, B/c Brahmin Kudal, resident of Opposite Foti Bhawan, Pratibha Nagar, Churu.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chanda Devi Wife of Om Prakash, B/c Agarwal Kiyal, resident of Near Sardar Vidhyalay, Ramgadhiya Darwaja, Churu.

¶7

Manoj Kumar Son of Govind Ram Ji Agarwal, resident of Near Sabji Mandi, Ladies Market, Churu.

¶8

Anand Kumar Son of Govind Ram Ji Agarwal, resident of Near Sabji Mandi, Ladies Market, Churu.

¶9

Smt. Vimla Wife of Pradeep Kumar, D/o Govind Ram Ji, B/c Jain, resident of Ajanta Watch Company, Near Alok Cinema, Churu.

¶10

Smt. Sarla Wife of Nathmal, D/o Govind Ram Ji, B/c Bajaj, resident of G-302, Sudarshan Apart Street, Maharana Pratap Road Bheyendra, Mumbai.

¶11

Kumari Sarita D/o Govind Ram Ji, B/c Agarwal, resident of Near Sabji Mandi, Ladies Market, Churu.

¶12

Smt. Sita Devi Wd/o Govind Ram Ji Agarwal, resident of Sabji Mandi, Ladies Market, Churu (Deleted).

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.D. Ujjwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.G. Ojha

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶16

Order

¶17

28/11/2018

¶18

Appellant-defendant has preferred this first appeal aggrieved by impugned judgment & decree dated 27^th of May, 2017, passed by District Judge, Churu (for short, ‘learned Court below’), whereby the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for eviction as well

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[CFA-373/2017]

¶21

as for mesne profit for use and occupation of the suit shop was decreed against appellant-defendant.

¶22

Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent-plaintiff Chanda Devi filed a suit for eviction as well as mesne profit against appellant-defendant for use and occupation of the suit shop stating inter-alia therein that the suit shop, situated at Gudadi Bazar, Churu, was purchased by her vide registered sale-deed dated 06.06.1994. Plaintiff averred in the suit that earlier the suit shop was given on rent to one Shiv Prasad Leela, father of Govind Ram, by her predecessor-in-title vide agreement dated 16.12.1953. It was also averred that erstwhile owner filed a suit against Govind Ram for eviction but the same was dismissed as tenancy could not be established and the matter travelled upto this Court and the second appeal too came to be dismissed. It was also stated in the plaint by plaintiff that during tenancy of Govind Ram, Ram Swaroop came in possession over the shop in question through Govind Ram and therefore status of the appellant-defendant was that of a licencee and accordingly vide notice dated 2.8.2005, licence was revoked despite that the defendant did not vacate the suit shop as such the suit for eviction and mesne profit filed.

¶23

Written statements to the suit were filed by Defendant No.1 Manoj Kumar S/o Govind Ram, Defendant No.3 Smt. Sita Devi and appellant-defendant No.7 Ramswaroop refuting the averments of plaint in toto. Defendant No.5 Smt. Sarla and Defendant No.6 requested for adopting the written statement submitted by Defendant No.3 whereas Defendant No.2 Anand

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

[CFA-373/2017]

¶26

Kumar in his written statement filed on 28.2.2006 accepted the case of the plaintiff. Rejoinder was also filed by the plaintiff to the written statements submitted on behalf of defendants No.1 & 7.

¶27

Learned Court below on the basis of pleadings of rival parties framed issues for determination and thereafter the rival parties tendered ocular as well as documentary evidence. Learned Court below, thereafter decided the issues and after appreciating the evidence available on record, vide judgment & decree dated 27.5.2017 decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff holding the plaintiff-respondent entitled to get possession of the suit shop and arrears of rent from 01.10.2005 @Rs.125 per month till possession and directed the appellant-defendant to vacate the suit shop within a period of two months.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, upon instructions, submits that the appellant-defendant is not pressing the appeal on merits but craving that a reasonable time may be granted to him to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit shop.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has very candidly accepted the proposal of learned counsel for the appellant to allow some time to the appellant for vacating the suit premises. After thorough deliberations, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has agreed to allow time for vacating the premises latest by 31^st of December, 2019 waiving mesne profits

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

[CFA-373/2017]

¶32

till handing over vacant possession of the suit shop to respondentplaintiff.

¶33

The aforesaid reasonable period to vacate the premises with payment of arrears of rent but without mesne profit is accepted by learned counsel for the appellant without any demure.

¶34

Accordingly, the present first appeal of the appellantdefendant is closed with a direction to the appellant-defendant to furnish a written undertaking in the Court below within a month incorporating following conditions:

¶35

(i) That he shall hand-over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property in dispute to the respondentsplaintiff on or before 31.12.2019 and shall not cause any damage to it and further maintain the same as it is, and the respondent-plaintiff shall not execute the impugned decree till 31.12.2019.

¶36

(ii) The appellant-defendant shall pay/deposit in the bank account of respondent-plaintiff arrears of rent, as determined by the Court below, within a period of three months from today upon furnishing details of bank account by respondent-plaintiff . Any amount already deposited on this account before the learned Court below shall be disbursed to the respondent-plaintiff.

¶37

(iii) The appellant-defendant shall undertake that he will not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises 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 he do so, the same will be treated as void.

¶38

(5 of 5) [CFA-373/2017]

¶39

The appellant shall submit a copy of the undertaking before this Court along with his affidavit. It is made clear that in case the appellant-defendant does not comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, then it will be open for the respondent-plaintiff to get the decree executed forthwith even before the aforesaid date, i.e., 31.12.2019, and the respondent-plaintiff may also initiate contempt proceedings in this Court against the appellantdefendant.

¶40

With the aforesaid terms, conditions and directions, the present first appeal of the appellant/defendant is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶41

A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Court below forthwith.

¶42

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶43

37-TSingh/-

Ram Swaroop v. Chanda Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Swaroop v. Chanda Devi and Ors.

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

Smt. Shubhavati and Anr. Vs Jodhpur V.V.N. Ltd.

U.I.T.Bikaner Vs State and Anr.

Baljeet Singh @ Kala Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Radheyshyam Vs State

Raju Ram Vs State

Shiv Lal Vs State