Dismissed

Manoj Kumar S/O Chotulal v. Rajendra Kumar S/O Late Dr. Roshan Lal

Rajasthan HC6 May 2024CW/4147/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a tenant, did not press the writ petition on merits and sought time to vacate the premises. The court dismissed the writ as not pressed but granted time until 30.11.2025 to hand over vacant possession, subject to payment of arrears and monthly mesne profits.

What did the court decide?

Writ dismissed as not pressed; time granted until 30.11.2025 to vacate subject to payment of arrears and Rs. 4,000/month mesne profit.

Manoj Kumar S/O Chotulal Vs Rajendra Kumar S/O Late… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:21360]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4147/2024

¶4

Manoj Kumar S/o Chotulal, Resident Of Behind Sabji Mandi, Ghasiyara Mohalla, Bundi (Raj.)

¶5

----Tenant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Dr. Roshan Lal, Resident Of Near S.B.I. Bank, Gurunanak Colony Bundi, Tehsil and District Bundi (Raj.)

¶8

----Landlord

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order

¶11

06/05/2024

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, does not press the writ petition on merits and prays for a reasonable time (upto 30.11.2025) to vacate the premises.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection to the prayer made; he, however, submits that the petitioner may be granted time subject to payment of a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month by way of mesne profit.

¶14

This is not objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

In the aforesaid circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner is granted time upto 30.11.2025 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the rented premises to the respondent subject to following conditions:-

¶16

The entire arrears of rent/mesne profit till date, shall be deposited by the petitioner in the bank account

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JP:21360]

[CW-4147/2024]

of respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

¶21

The petitioner shall pay a sum of ₹4,000/- per month towards mesne profit to the respondent from 01.05.2024 till vacation of the rented premises i.e. on or before 30.11.2025, which may be deposited by him in the bank account of the respondent by 10^th day of each succeeding month.

¶22

The petitioner further undertakes that he shall not sub-let, assign or part with possession of rented 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.

¶23

The petitioner shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating aforesaid conditions before the learned Rent Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.

¶24

It is made clear that in case, petitioner does not comply with any of aforesaid conditions, the learned Rent Tribunal shall ensure his eviction without requiring respondent to file a separate execution petition even before aforesaid date and it will also be open for respondent to initiate contempt proceedings in this Court.

¶25

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶26

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶27

Sudha/63

Manoj Kumar S/O Chotulal v. Rajendra Kumar S/O Late Dr. Roshan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar S/O Chotulal v. Rajendra Kumar S/O Late Dr. Roshan Lal

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

Savitri Devi W/O Late Sh. Keshav Dev Vs State of Rajasthan

Rani Singh W/O Late Sh. Samunder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Singh S/O Late Sh. Batol Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Mahendrasingh S/O Late Shri Darshansingh Vs Smt. Shimla W/O Late Shri George Fraklin (Deceased)

Poornmal S/O Chotu Ram Vs Dharampal S/O Bajrang Lal

Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/O Shri Surja Ram Vs State of Rajasthan