Dismissed

Abdul Salim/ Mohammad Salim S/O Abdul Karim v. Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2019CW/10018/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction orders. The bench allowed the petitioner one year to vacate the shop and pay pending rent, fixing the deadline for possession to the respondent for July 1, 2020.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one year time to vacate the shop; directed to pay rent till vacation; possession to be handed over by 01.07.2020.

Abdul Salim/ Mohammad Salim S/O Abdul Karim Vs Smt… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10018/2019

¶3

Abdul Salim/ Mohammad Salim S/o Abdul Karim, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste-Musalman, R/o Friends Electricals, Shakti Bazar, Sabzi Mandi, Kota (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste-Brahamin, R/o Shakti Bazar, Sabzi Mandi, Kota

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajid Ali, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh, Adv.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶10

Order

¶11

01/07/2019

¶12

In the present case, the order dt.07.11.2016 passed in Eviction Petition and further order dt.08.04.2019 affirmed by the Appellate Authority, have been challenged.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is concurrent finding against the petitioner-plaintiff, however if some reasonable time may be given to make alternative arrangement, the petitioner would vacate the premise in question. Learned counsel has submitted that since it is a commercial shop, the petitioner, at least be granted two years time to make alternative arrangement.

¶14

Mr. Rinesh Gupta, counsel for the respondent-owner of the property, submits that the respondent is already deprived from the

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CW-10018/2019]

¶17

use of the property in spite of order passed in his favour by both the Courts below and as such this Court may only grant six months’ time to the petitioner to vacate the premise in question.

¶18

I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶19

This Court deems it appropriate to grant one year’s time to the petitioner to vacate the premise in question. The petitioner would further be required to pay rent which he is already paying and the rent should be paid every month till vacation of the shop in question after expiry of one year. It is made clear that the petitioner would vacate the shop on or before 01.07.2020 and the possession would be handed over to the respondent.

¶20

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in above terms.

¶21

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶22

A.Kumar/14

Abdul Salim/ Mohammad Salim S/O Abdul Karim v. Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salim/ Mohammad Salim S/O Abdul Karim v. Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma

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

Rajasthan State Co-Operative Consumer Federation Limited Vs Fateh Singh S/O Shri Kalyan Singh

Hari Shankar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Baldev Singh Fauzdar S/O Shri Atar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Narayan S/O Late Shri Amba Lal Vs Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Madan Lal Yadav D/O Late Shri Amba Lal Yadav

Ramesh Kumar S/O Laxminarayan Vs Maliram S/O Late Shri Shiv Ratan Darji

Smt. Mainadevi W/O Shri Santosh Kabra Vs Rajesh Odaka S/O Late Ramprasad Odaka