Partly allowed

Gopal Das S/O Shri Gulab Chand Naredi, v. Smt. Kanta Devi Sabu W/O Shri Gordhandas Sabu

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2025CW/7083/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order directing eviction from rented premises. The petition was not pressed on merits; instead, the court granted extension of time to vacate until June 2027, subject to deposit of arrears and payment of double rent, with enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time to vacate premises till 30.06.2027 subject to depositing arrears and paying double rent.

Gopal Das S/O Shri Gulab Chand Naredi, Vs Smt. Kanta… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:24273]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7083/2025

¶4

Gopal Das S/o Shri Gulab Chand Naredi, Aged About 73 Years, Shopkeeper Shop No. 2197, Gandhi Market, Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Kanta Devi Sabu W/o Shri Gordhandas Sabu, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of House No. 97, Dinanath Ji Ki Gali, Chandpole Market, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

1/1. Kamal Kishore Sabu S/o Late Shri Gorhan Das Sabu, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of House No. 97, Dinanath Ji Ki Gali, Chandpole Market, Jaipur.

¶9

1/2. Smt. Neena Sabu, W/o Late Nawal Kishore Sabu, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of House No. 97, Dinanath Ji Ki Gali, Chandpole Market, Jaipur.

¶10

1/3. Nitesh Sabu S/o Late Shri Nawal Kishore Sabu, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of House No. 97, Dinanath Ji Ki Gali, Chandpole Market, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Surya PratapSingh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.M. C. Jain

¶13

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

02/07/2025

¶16

The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the application filed by the respondents under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to vacate the rented premises within a period of six months.

[2025:RJ-JP:24273]

[CW-7083/2025]

(2 of 3)

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a statutory appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, however, the same was rejected vide judgment dated 31.01.2025 and the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal has been upheld.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time, on instructions of his client, has not pressed this petition on its merits. Alternatively, the petitioner prays for granting two years time to vacate the rented premises.

¶22

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the eviction proceedings, in pursuance of the application filed by the respondents remained pending for adjudication before the Rent Tribunal, hence under these circumstances, granting two years more time to the petitioner would be unjustified on the part of respondents. Counsel submits that appropriate suitable time be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the parties, this petition stands disposed of in the following terms:-

¶24

The petitioner shall be entitled to continue in possession of the suit premises till 30.06.2027, but not beyond that, subject to condition that he will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the rented premises to the respondents on or before 30.06.2027.

¶25

The petitioner shall deposit the arrears of rent, due if any, within a period of three months and shall continue to deposit the double amount of monthly rent, i.e., Rs. 3160/- with the Bank account of the respondents by 15^th of each successive month.

¶26

The petitioner shall not alienate or otherwise create third party right or hand over the possession of the rented premises in question to anyone.

[2025:RJ-JP:24273]

[CW-7083/2025]

(3 of 3)

In case the petitioner fails to deposit the rent consecutively for a period of four months, the respondents shall be at liberty to execute the order passed by the Rent Tribunal without further reference to the Court.

¶31

Further the petitioner shall submit an undertaking on oath incorporating the aforesaid conditions before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur within a period of four weeks from today. In case, the petitioner fails to submit an undertaking as aforesaid within a period of four weeks from today and / or commits breach of any of the conditions of this order, the respondents shall be entitled to execute the order passed by the Rent Tribunal forthwith and shall obtain the possession of the rented premises in accordance with law.

¶32

The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶34

Aayush Sharma /84

Gopal Das S/O Shri Gulab Chand Naredi, v. Smt. Kanta Devi Sabu W/O Shri Gordhandas Sabu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Das S/O Shri Gulab Chand Naredi, v. Smt. Kanta Devi Sabu W/O Shri Gordhandas Sabu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajpal S/O Prithvi Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bikhu Singh Son of Late Shri Bhairu Singh Vs Municipal Board Pushkar

Mohammed Imran S/O Shri Naimuddeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Maa Jwala College of Education Vs the State of Rajasthan

Surajmal Said Adopted Son of Richpal Vs Santosh S/O Badri

Mahesh Kumar Sen S/O Kishan Lal Sen Vs Smt. Maya Devi W/O Late Sh. Tara Chand Jain