Dismissed

Abdul Rahim v. Mohammad Harun

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2021CW/2286/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions as not pressed on merits, granting the petitioner time to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlord by 31.12.2021 subject to conditions regarding mesne profit and payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed on consent; petitioner granted time until 31.12.2021 to hand over vacant possession and pay mesne profit/arrears.

Abdul Rahim Vs Mohammad Harun — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2100/2020

¶3

Abdul Rahim S/o Dawood Musalman (Dawood Kasam) (Lathe Machine Wale), Aged About 84 Years, Resident Of Machinery Market, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mohammad Harun S/o Late Abdul Raseed @ Babu Luhar, Resident Of Gulmandi, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2286/2020

¶10

Abdul Rahim S/o Dawood Musalman (Dawood Kasam) (Lathe Machine Wale), Aged About 84 Years, Machinery Market, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

Mohammad Harun S/o Late Abdul Raseed @ Babu Luhar, Gulmandi, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alkesh Kumar Agarwal (through VC) Mr. Irfan Gori

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶17

Order

¶18

05/07/2021

¶19

The petitioner-non-applicant has preferred these two writ petitions being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Appeal Nos. 175/2013 and 176/2013, whereby the appeals of the petitioner as well as

¶20

(2 of 4) [CW-2100/2020]

¶21

of the respondent have been dismissed and the judgment dated 18.07.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has been affirmed. By the judgment dated 18.07.2013, the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has allowed the original application filed by the respondent for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity

¶22

only.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner upon instructions submits that the petitioner do not want to press these writ petitions on merits, however, prays that reasonable time may be granted to him to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent agrees that he has no objection if reasonable time is given to the petitioner to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the mesne profit of disputed premises at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date the rent is due and is also ready to continue to pay mesne profit every month by 15^th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent up till the vacant possession is handed over to the respondent.

¶26

Accordingly, with the consent of both the learned counsel, the present writ petitions of the petitioner are dismissed as not pressed on merits with a direction to the petitioner to submit an undertaking to the effect that he will handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[CW-2100/2020]

¶29

premises to the respondent-landlord on or before 31.12.2021 with the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking to the effect that he shall handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises in dispute to the respondentapplicant on or before 31.12.2021 and shall not cause any

¶31

damage to the rent property and shall maintain the same as it is. The respondent shall not execute the impugned decree till 31.12.2021.

¶32

(ii) The petitioner shall pay the mesne profit of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date the rent is due and shall further continue to pay mesne profit every month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent up till vacant possession is handed over to the respondent-landlord. The arrears of rent and mesne profit as determined by the Tribunals below, if not already paid, shall also be paid by the petitioner within a period of three months from today and entire amount including the amount already deposited on this account will be disbursed to the respondent.

¶33

(iii) The petitioner-defendant shall further 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 they do so, the same will be treated as void.

¶34

(iv) The petitioner shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial Court by 31^st July, 2021 and one copy thereof along with affidavit in this Court.

¶35

(4 of 4) [CW-2100/2020]

¶36

(v) The respondent will give the details of his bank account number in which the arrears of rent or mesne profit and regular mesne profit now to be paid, will be deposited within a period of three months from today.

¶37

(vi) It is made clear, that in case, the petitioner does not comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, then it will be open for the respondent to get the decree passed in his favour executed forthwith even before the aforesaid dated i.e. 31.12.2021 and the respondent may also initiate contempt proceedings in this Court against the petitioner. No costs.

¶38

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

¶39

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶40

8-9-akash/-

Abdul Rahim v. Mohammad Harun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahim v. Mohammad Harun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Tara Devi Vs Chunnilal

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd. Shahazad Vs State

Vinod Kumar Vs State

Deva Ram Vs State of Rajasthan