Partly allowed

Mangilal v. Lrs. Late Pusaram

Rajasthan HC16 May 2018CFA/79/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a First Appeal arising from an eviction suit, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the appellant-defendant a stay to retain possession until 30.06.2019 subject to strict conditions regarding deposit of rent, mesne profits, and the undertaking to hand over vacant possession.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to vacate premises by 30.06.2019 on conditions including deposit of mesne profits, payment of Rs.5,000/month rent, and undertaking to hand over vacant possession without modification.

Mangilal Vs Lrs. Late Pusaram — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 79 / 2017

¶3

MangiLal S/o ShivNarayan, by Caste Jangid, Aged About 54 Years, Resident of Khakholi, At Present Molasar, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagour.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Lrs Late PusaRam S/o Khinwa Ram, by Caste Jangid, Resident of Molaser, Tehsil Deedwana., Since deceased through legal representatives-

¶7

Soni Devi W/o Pusaram

¶8

Dhanraj @ Dhanaram S/o Pusaram.

¶9

Mani Devi W/o Rooparam.

¶10

Premi Devi W/o BrijMohan.

¶11

Kanchan Devi W/o Radhe Shyam.

¶12

Dulichand S/o PuraRam.

¶13

Tara W/o Ramavtar.

¶14

Tejpal S/o PusaRam.

¶15

Basanti W/o Sohanlal, All by Caste Jangid, Resident of Molaser, Tehsil Deedwana.

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Talat Bari

¶18

For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma

¶19

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶20

Judgment

¶21

16/05/2018

¶22

This first appeal by the defendant has arisen out of the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits, as filed by the plaintiffs-landlord wherein, the learned Trial Court, vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 19.12.2016 passed in Civil

¶23

(2 of 4)

¶24

[CFA-79/2017]

¶25

Original Suit No. 07/2009 titled as “LRs of Late Pusaram Vs. Mangilal” 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. 1500/- per month from the date of filing of the suit to 31.05.2018. According to the decree in question, the defendant is required to hand over the possession of the suit shop within four months with a stipulation to pay Rs.1500/- per month for use and occupation of the suit shop.

¶26

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.

¶27

Mr. Talat Bari, 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.

¶28

Mr. P.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, however opposed the prayer of the appellant regarding granting of

(3 of 4)

[CFA-79/2017]

time.

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.

¶33

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 30.06.2019 on the following conditions:-

¶34

(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 30.06.2019, 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.

¶35

(ii) The appellant-defendant shall deposit the arrears of rent and ‘mesne profits’ awarded by the Trial Court for the period ending on 31.05.2018, by 31.07.2018.

¶36

(iii) The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the landlordrespondents for retaining the possession of the suit

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[CFA-79/2017]

¶39

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.5,000/- shall be payable on 7^th June, 2018.

¶40

(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. P.C. Sharma to Mr. Talat Bari, within a period of 15 days from today, if the plaintiffs want the amount to be deposited in their Bank Account.

¶41

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.

¶42

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. No Costs.

¶43

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶44

Anurag/48

Mangilal v. Lrs. Late Pusaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangilal v. Lrs. Late Pusaram

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

Lrs of Chhotu Khan Vs Smt. Maina Kumari and Anr.

Lal Shanker Vs Kacharu and Anr.

Jaipur V.V.N. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Smt. Uma @ Fuma Devi

Rakhi Jain Vs Ajeet Kumar Jain

Dr. Smt. Ruchi Baid Vs Dr. Akhil Govil

Smt. Barji and Anr. Vs Smt. Lali Devi