This second appeal involved a landlord-tenant dispute. The tenants-appellants sought a time extension to vacate premises originally allowed until 1980. The High Court allowed them to remain until 30th April 2021.
Appellants entitled to possession till 30.04.2021; must surrender vacant possession then; to file undertaking within 4 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 27511993
Ramnarayan
ellant ell ant
Versus
Birdhi Chand Lakhotiya Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : . & M$ MC .Ja,i,n !%$< j 23 " -1 > J a?? d?r'"<'
For Respondent(s) * , b G. 3 :P.,J. PM;~: . BP ~ing!h~~.~~$vocate assisted by
*>XI.
Ch2; " 'Vagish K Singh '
\ "."
?.
"
. *HON~BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
$& ,4
%9
Judqment * *?s+- p<
02/05/2018 9 '> tSz :& la a A :? B d K.> 2' $ %, Z*$ $::& zy r,dri$$-5, The instant Civ&$&con&PJp;pga:II 'a. .%-:rh. & c"'-k, : is ""@a' '..".?y%,.&~~ 5 ir .-> ,.r"%ci I * t&P;-% . $4 . -.+ .. , . %$. .-. 'ject '. PC has &jFiP"se" ,$?;xG$+rk$<,$.&yG> , . 4.;..~ > ,@ ,$:&%+2 +i :"!A&?? p&4.been filed by the d;~f&%d:qn$~a?a:@psl:lsints is ..61$$+%F\ ; =, ,:, --..$ .- . ST . **_z_* aggrieved by the ;;*?% _2..7&**4&!A;J_ ?%W * , &>$*>,$22i??7; x~ 2%- *:.:; $) .$&; >& !$+'-! d? judgment and decree d?&~@@t&J~~,lJirr993 **k2+&** passed by learned w r i.,.;f@jr,,k '4% !.-a. ${:; .ti : $. Additional District Judge, Rmer . ibs .. in 8. ci$il :(egular appeal No.8211986 $ 2& ;;.s f $; whereby the court belqv: " Ids: ,< ,, A ' al:l;Qh!ed the appeal filed by the l* $.. *s~:?irt '" ~ ;*$.6*.._ _2 -7_ usi$n~~&;%* :--?& plaintiffs-respondents f@$$t$i$~&~~~?@,,m.eli;t and decree dated 3rd 2 - >,.<.! , < %.it ( 2:. . p.- .;5 6, itF ?;?% ,$ 't '".; ,$ . i* anuary, 1980 passed by .9aiX".h lea.&dd~!liti,~fi@ ..r,a2Q;.ih+-T--h -5 Ty 1' c--. Munsif West, Ajmer in V'X b., tz ,$% : yes ,.,, ,,:& s. .., la*;.: -, **"W ;&&a. .,.a** ,;v Civil Suit No.221/1974 whereby the suit W6&%Z#WV Sf&?"" < _$ .,Mw?qwwk, of the plaintiff-resporldent i+:&qg* fi-$ *sl yq T) for eviction and recovery of rent was decreed. *.
Shri MC Jain, learned counsel appearing for the defendantappellant instead of pressing the appeal on merits, on instructions of his client (who is present in person in the Court), stated th'at / the appellant may kindly be granted three years' time to vacate the tenanted premises.
Mr. RP Singh, .learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents, on instruction of his client, (who is present in person in the Court), has no objection in granting three years' time to the defendants-appellants to vacate the tenanted premises.
In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties, this second appeal is being decided in the following
terms: -
Further, the appellants shall submit an undertaking on oath incorporating the aforesaid conditions before the trial court wlithin a period of four weeks from the date of this order. In case, the appellants fail to submit the undertaking as aforesaid with'in four weeks from today and/or commit breach of any of the conditions of this order, the plaintiffs-respondents shall be entitled to execute
[CSA-275119931
(3 of 3)
the decree forthwith and obtain possession of the suit premises in
accordance with law.
The second appeal stands disposed of accordingly, Stay application is also disposed of.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the tenants-appellants are entitled to a time extension to vacate the suit premises.
Ramnarayan
Birdhi Chand Lakhotiya Ors.
Prakash Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
