Partly allowed

Ratan Kumar v. Lrs of Suraj Narayan

Rajasthan HC26 Apr 2018CSA/127/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The second appeal in an eviction suit was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the court granted the appellant-defendant time to vacate the premises by 31st March, 2020, on conditions including payment of arrears, monthly rent Rs. 1,500 as damages, and filing an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to vacate premises by 31st March, 2020; enhancement of damages to Rs. 1,500 per month; conditions imposed for possession handover.

Ratan Kumar Vs Lrs of Suraj Narayan — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 127 / 2017

¶3

Ratan Kumar S/o Shri Kusaddi Lal, Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Gour Brahmin, Resident of Ratan Bhandar Kem Road, Bikaner.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

L.R.s of Suraj Narayan :-, By Caste Brahmin, Resident of Tirth Stambh Ke Pass, Near Devi Temple, Bikaner., Since deceased through legal representatives-

¶7

Usha W/o Suresh Chander D/o

¶8

Vidhya W/o Laxmi Nayaran D/o

¶9

Laxmi Devi W/o Jagan Nath D/o

¶10

Shanti Devi W/do., Suraj Narayan , by Caste Brahmin, Resident of Tirth Stambh Ke Pass, Near Kela Devi Temple, Bikaner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.L. Jain

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Vyas

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

26/04/2018

¶17

This second appeal by the defendant has arisen out of the suit for eviction, possession and recovery of arrears of rent, as filed by the plaintiff-landlord. The order under challenge is the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Decree No.45/2010 titled as “Ratan Kumar Vs. LRs of Suraj

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CSA-127/2017]

¶20

Narayan”, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 15.04.2010 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Original Suit No.42/1999 titled as “Suraj Narayan Vs. Ratan Kumar”.

¶21

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 concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, the learned counsel for the appellantdefendant submitted, in the alternative, that some time may be allowed to the appellant to vacate the demised premises.

¶22

The learned counsel submitted that the appellant has been carrying on the business in the suit premises for over 45 years and shall need some time to make alternative arrangements.

¶23

Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellantdefendant, while seeking permission to withdraw the present second 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.

¶24

Mr. Ajay Vyas, however, opposed such prayer.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it appears appropriate to allow some breathing time to the appellant-defendant to vacate the suit premises by 31^st March, 2020, while enhancing amount the towards damages, for use and occupation of the suit premises, particularly during the extra period to vacate, as being allowed in

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CSA-127/2017]

¶28

this appeal @ Rs. 1,500/- per month, until the appellantdefendant vacate the suit premises.

¶29

Finding no ground to interfere, this second appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn; however, the appellant-defendant is granted time to vacate the suit premises by 31^st March, 2020 on the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) The appellant shall personally submit an undertaking supported by affidavit before the Trial Court within a period of one month from today to the effect that on or before 31^st March, 2020, he shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs-respondents. 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.

¶31

(ii) The appellant-defendant shall deposit the arrears of rent/mesne profits upto 30^th June, 2018 and shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) to the landlord-respondents 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.1,500/- shall be payable on 7^th May, 2018.

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CSA-127/2017]

¶34

(iii) While depositing the arrears of ‘mesne profits’, the appellant shall be at liberty to reduce the excess amount of rent/’mesne profits’ already deposited by him.

¶35

(iv) The amount of arrears of ‘mense profit’ shall be deposited in Trial Court. However monthly ‘mesne profit’ of Rs.1,500/- as ordered today be deposited in the Bank account of the respondent-landlord. Particulars of Bank details of the Landlord(s) shall be given by Mr. Ajay Vyas to Mr. S.L. Jain within a period of 10 days from today.

¶36

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.

¶37

No costs.

¶38

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶39

/Upendra/46

Ratan Kumar v. Lrs of Suraj Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Kumar v. Lrs of Suraj Narayan

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

Mainuddin Vs Gordhan and Ors.

Lrs of Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Lrs of Smt. Laxmi Devi and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs Rsrtc and Anr.

Babu Khan Vs Jamila and Ors.

State of Raj. and Anr. Vs M/S Hightech Construction Co.

Ganpat Lal Vs Lrs of Amba Shankar and Anr.