Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jeevraj vs Om Prakash on 6 July, 2012
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011
JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012
1/23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011
(JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH)
JUDGMENT
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 06.07.2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.J.R. Patel, for the appellant-defendant. Mr.R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Narendra Thanvi for the respondent-plaintiff.
REPORTABLE
1. The defendant-tenant has filed this second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction by the first appellate court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Appeal No.23/2009 - Om Prakash vs. Jeevraj dated 23.05.2011 reversing the judgment and decree of trial court dismissing the eviction suit No.177/2000 - Om Prakash vs. Jeevraj on 22.04.2009.
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 2/23
2. The decree of eviction has been given on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord Om Prakash in respect of his shop measuring 9x12 ft. situated at prominent commercial area of Jodhpur at 1st B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
3. The case for eviction set up by landlord Om Prakash was that after the death of his father Jay Narayan on 22.11.1986, under an oral family partition dated 22.01.1987, the suit shop fell in his favour and at the time of such partition, he was working as a tailor with his brother in another shop under the name and style of M/s. Free India Tailors, but upon partition, his brother ousted him from the said shop and therefore, he became unemployed and consequently, he required the suit shop for starting his own business as a tailor.
4. The defendant-tenant Jeevraj is also running a tailoring shop in the suit shop in the name and style of M/s. Ajay Tailors.
5. The learned trial court did not find ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity for eviction as established and consequently dismissed the suit for eviction on 22.04.2009, which suit was filed in the year 2000.
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 3/23 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2009, the plaintiff-landlord preferred first appeal, which came to be allowed by the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, reversing the findings of the learned trial court. The learned first appellate court held that the bonafide necessity of the landlord was established by the landlord and consequently he was entitled to the decree for eviction. The decree was accordingly granted by the appellate court and the defendant-tenant was directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the landlord within a period of two months and to pay the mesne profit @ Rs.200/- per month.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant Mr. J.R. Patel vehemently urged that the learned appellate court has reversed the findings of the learned trial court without formulating the points for determination as mandatorily required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. He further submitted that the bonafide need of landlord Om Prakash was not established and the learned trial court had rightly dismissed the suit of the landlord. The landlord Om Prakash continued to actually work with his brother as tailor even after S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 4/23 partition in the shop already available with them in which both of them worked in M/s. Free India Tailors and, therefore, there was no unemployment of the landlord Om Prakash and since there was admission to this effect by the landlord in his cross-examination, the decree of eviction could not have been granted by the appellate court. He further urged that an alternative accommodation became available to the plaintiff in the year 1993, which was let out to another tenant for the shop known as M/s. Deep Kala Saree Centre and in view of availability of such alternative accommodation available to the landlord, he could not claim bonafide need for the suit shop in the present suit filed in the year 2000.
7. Assailing the judgment of the first appellate court on the ground of it being laconic, without cogent reasons for reversing of trial court's judgment, the learned counsel Mr. J.R. Patel, relying upon various case laws, submitted that the appellate court has failed to assign any reasons for such reversal of judgment of trial court and it is not the mere desire or whims of the landlord, which can be said to be bonafide need of the landlord for eviction and consequently the eviction decree of the first appellate court deserves to S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 5/23 be reversed in the present second appeal and substantial questions of law arise in the present second appeal for determination by this Court.
8. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi strongly opposed all the contentions raised by learned counsel for the defendant - tenant and submitted that the powers of the appellate court are co-extensive and wide enough under Section 100 CPC and in the present case, the first appellate court has rightly granted the decree of eviction. He urged that since the question of title is not relevant in tenancy matters under 1950 Rent Control law and the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is not even disputed and denied by the defendant-tenant, the submission of appellant- defendant-tenant with regard to family partition in the year 1987 and thereafter filing the suit for eviction in the year 2000 are not relevant and such suit cannot be said to be barred or belated.
9. Opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-tenant that alternative accommodation, which was let out to M/s. Deep Kala Saree Centre in the year 1993, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, submitted that such shop in the S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 6/23 year 1993 was jointly given by all the three brothers including the plaintiff-landlord to the said tenant M/s. Deep Kala Saree Centre and, therefore, it could not be said that bonafide need of eviction could have been satisfied with such alternative accommodation. He submitted that the landlord Om Prakash was making his both ends meet by doing the tailoring job in the first floor room of his residential house and brought job works of tailoring from various other shops and he needed the ground floor shop on the main road of the market, for doing his own business in a proper manner. The profession in which he was well- versed for last 13 years from 1987 till 2000, he remained almost unemployed. Mr. Thanvi urged that in this regard, the settled legal position is that the landlord is the best judge for his requirements and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms in this regard that the landlord should have done his tailoring business in the first floor room only.
10. He also submitted that if substantial compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is made in the judgment of the first appellate court, separate mention of points for determination is not a necessity and the judgment of first appellate court, even though reversing the judgment of the S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 7/23 trial court, is not vitiated on this ground alone and it is the whole tenor and reasoning of the judgment has to be appreciated by the appellate court. He strongly refuted the possibility of re-appreciation of the evidence in the present second appeal. Since the findings about the bonafide necessity of the landlord are essentially the findings of fact, which cannot be said to be perverse at all and, therefore, no substantial question of law actually arises in the present case. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and eviction decree of the first appellate court do not suffer from any infirmity and urged for dismissal of the present second appeal of the defendant- tenant at this stage.
11. Both the learned counsels agreed for final disposal of the appeal at the admission stage itself and accordingly the arguments were heard at length and record was also perused besides the judgments cited at the bar.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. The reasons are as follows.
13. Essentially and normally, the findings about the bonafide and reasonable necessity of the landlord for S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 8/23 eviction of the suit premises is a finding of fact and it is the satisfaction of the Court about such bonafide necessity of the landlord. It is true that mere whims and desires of the landlord cannot amount to such bonafide need and the tenants are entitled to the protection under the Rent Control law and, therefore, the eviction sought has to be established on the reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord for such eviction. At the same time, it is equally important to know that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how he should adjust his needs and affairs. The landlord is the best judge for his own requirements of the suit premises and if such bonafide requirement is properly established before the trial court on the basis of the evidence led by the landlord, then shorn of questions about title, eviction decree is normally granted.
14. In the present case, since the relationship of the landlord and the tenant has never been disputed by the defendant-tenant, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant about family partition in 1987 being sham and also that the receipts for rent after partition were issued by landlord Om Prakash or his brother Kailash are really of no consequence and avail. The bonafide need S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 9/23 of landlord Om Prakash who wanted to do his own tailoring business independently, admittedly was doing the tailoring job with his brother in the shop known as M/s. Free India Tailors and such need obviously arose after the death of the father and partition between the brothers in 1987. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the plaintiff landlord Om Prakash was working as a tailor with his brother in the shop known as M/s. Free India Tailors for subsequent years also, his bonafide need for eviction of his own shop, which fell into his share upon the partition in the year 1987, cannot be said to have been washed away. On the other hand, such need aggravates with the passage of time and its intensity may increase with his unemployment or even underemployment in the face of his own shop being available but the same is in the possession of the plaintiff. Obviously, it was not for the tenant to dictate nor possible for any court to hold that his making the arrangement for doing tailoring job in the first floor room of his residential house, was good enough substitute for the suit shop on the ground floor of main market road. The tenant-defendant obviously could not dictate terms in this regard.
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 10/23
15. As far as format of the judgment of the first appellate court being in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is concerned, this Court is fully satisfied that the first appellate court has given cogent and convincing reasons for reversal of finding of the trial court about the bonafide necessity of the landlord for such eviction in the present case. The learned trial court on the other hand gave pedantic findings and rejected the suit for eviction on the grounds like difference in the dates of partition deed being 22.01.1987 or 22.11.1987 and whether the rent receipts were issued by landlord's brother Kailash or by landlord himself even after 1987. These questions could be relevant only if the title of the landlord was denied by the tenant or the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied and the same could be required to be established by the plaintiff-landlord while if title is so wrongly denied by tenant, it would become a ground for granting eviction decree by the Court. Nothing of this sort was there in the present case and such relationship was admitted by the defendant-tenant. Therefore, even if bonafide necessity of landlord Om Prakash arose because of partition in the year 1987, the same could not have been washed away by such factors. They were obviously S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 11/23 background factors on which the question of eviction on bonafide need of landlord was not required to be decided.
16. The bonafide need of the landlord was to do his own business independently in the suit shop and for that purpose after waiting for 13 years, if he has filed the eviction suit in the year 2000, one fails to understand how the learned trial court could reach to the conclusion that bonafide need does not exist, since he continued to do some work with his brother in the shop named as M/s. Free India Tailors. He was not expected to starve doing nothing and if he managed to make his both ends meet by doing some work with his brother or doing his own work in the first floor room available with him, it could not be said that since his requirements were satisfied, the eviction of suit shop should not be ordered. The business needs of the plaintiff-landlord could possibly be only satisfied properly on the ground floor shop on the main market road i.e. the suit shop and not in the manner as contended by learned counsel for the defendant-tenant in the aforesaid manner.
17. The contention with regard to giving of another shop in the year 1993 to M/s. Deep Kala Saree Centre also does not wash out the bonafide need of the landlord for the S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 12/23 suit shop. The said shop was not apparently in the exclusive ownership and possession of landlord Om Prakash and the same was given on rent to M/s. Deep Kala Saree Centre in the year 1993 by all the three brothers and, therefore, in the suit filed in the subsequent year 2000, it cannot be contended by defendant-tenant that the landlord ought to have satisfied his need by not giving another shop which was available in the year 1993 to the family to M/s. Deep Kala Saree Centre. Whether in the said shop of the three brothers, who had the control and jointly agreed to give it on rent to M/s. Deep Kala Saree Centre, is a question which was neither relevant in the suit filed subsequently in the year 2000 nor as the first appellate court has rightly held the burden in this regard was not discharged by the defendant-tenant.
18. In the opinion of this Court, if the learned first appellate court has given its findings on the basis of evidence issuewise like it has decided the issue No.1, 3 and 4 jointly in para 13 and 14 of the judgment under appeal, the sufficient and full compliance with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 were made by the learned appellate court and it is not in dispute that the powers of the appellate S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 13/23 court are of course wider and co-extensive with that of the trial court and it has right to reverse the findings of the trial court also, giving its own reasonings on the basis of the evidence available, which it did in the present case.
19. In the opinion of this Court, the learned appellate court has duly given cogent reasons and discussing the entire evidence with regard to bonafide need of the landlord, has found that that such bonafide need existed and, therefore, the eviction was ordered. In para 15, 18 and 19 of the judgment, the learned appellate court has also discussed the issues relating to alternative accommodation, partial eviction and comparative hardship and has found in favour of the landlord and, therefore, reversing the order of the learned trial court, has directed the eviction.
20. Now coming to the case laws cited by both the sides, a brief review of the same is found appropriate.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant Mr. J.R. Patel strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in Babu Lal vs. Ladu Ram & Ors. 1997(2) RLW (Raj.) 774, Khetu Lal vs. Narsingh Das & Ors. 1997(2) RLW (Raj.) 810, Parimal vs. Veena @ Bharti 2011 DNJ (SC) S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 14/23 219 and H. Siddiqui (dead by Lrs) vs. A. Ramalingam 2011(1) WLC(SC) 475 in support of statutory obligation of the appellate court to formulate the points for determination as envisaged under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. There is no quarrel on the principles of law propounded in these judgments, but mentioning of heading "Points for determination" is not the essential requirement. If the findings of the appellate court giving reasons for reversal of trial court's order are there and which is important matter and as this Court has come to the conclusion that the first appellate court has done so, the judgment of the first appellate court cannot be said to be vitiated merely because such points for determination are not specifically stated in the judgment itself. Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Amalorpavam & Ors. Vs. R. C. Diocese of Madurai & Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 224 in para 9 and 12 has held that if the appellate court considered entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail, there was substantial compliance of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and such judgment of appellate court was not vitiated.
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 15/23
22. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant relied upon (i) 1996 AIR Patna 156- Bibi Riajan Khatoon & Ors. vs. Sadrul Alam & Ors., (ii) 1997 AIR Patna 67- Smt. Sona Devi vs. Nagina Singh & Ors., and (iii) 2010 (1)WLC (SC) Civil 742- S.R. Srinivasa & Ors. Vs. S. Padmavathamma for the proposition that whenever the first appellate court reverses the findings of fact recorded by the trial court without adverting to reasons given by the trial court, such finding of fact can also be interfered with in the second appeal under Section 100 CPC. He also relied on the following judgments for the same proposition.
(i) 2008(2) WLC (SC) 64 - Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & anr.
(ii) 2004(1) WLC (SC) 319 - Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul & anr. vs. Pratima Marty & ors.
(iii) 1987 AIR SC 2055 - Dipak Banerjee vs. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty
(iv) 2003(1) CCC 145(SC) - Bonder Singh & ors. vs. Nihal Singh & ors.
(v) 2010 DNJ (SC) 545 - Bharatha Matha & anr. vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan & ors.
23. How the bonafide need of the landlord has to be judged, for this learned counsel for the appellant-defendant Mr. Patel relied upon these judgments:
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 16/23
(i) 1987(1) RLR 88 - Bhagirath vs. Ram Prasad & anr.
(ii) 1988 AIR (SC) 365 - Govind vs. Dr. Jeetsingh
(iii) 2005(1) DNJ (Raj.) 480 - Heeralal vs. Mandir Shri Thakurji Sangaria & anr.
(iv) 1999 (2) RCJ 388(SC) - Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta
(v) 1999 (4) CCC 128 (SC) - T. Sivasubramanian & ors. vs. Kasinath Pujari & ors.
24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, Mr. R.K. Thanvi relied upon following judgments in support of his contention that grounds of bonafide need are a recurring cause of action and there is no limitation in filing such suit, which in the present case was filed after 13 years of partition in the year 1987 in the year 2000.
(i) 2001 (2) RCR 169 - N.R. Narayan Swamy vs. D. Francis Jagan
(ii) 2001 (2) RCR 272 - Sadanandan vs. Pradeepan
25. For the proposition that the bonafide requirement of the landlord must be treated with the sympathy, learned counsel Mr. Thanvi relied upon 2001 (8) SCC 561 - Siddalingamma & anr. vs. Mamtha Shenoy.
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 17/23
26. For limited scope of interference in second appeal under Section 100 of the Act, he relied upon following three judgments:
(i) 2009(3) SCC 287 - Narendra Gopal Vidharthi vs. Rajat Vidharthi
(ii) 2012(1) CCC 285 - Thakur Das vs. Natthu Mal
(ii) 2008(9) SCC 699 - Ajit Singh & anr. vs. Jit Ram & anr.
27. He also urged that the second appeal cannot become a third trial on facts and interference by High Court is permissible only in cases involving substantial question of law, which he urged, do not arise in the present case. In support of this contention, he relied upon following judgment.
(i) 2007(1) SCC - 546 - Gurudev Kaur & ors. vs. Kaki & ors.
28. For the proposition that even co-landlord or one of the landlords could file suit for eviction, he relied upon 2004 (3) RLW (Raj.) 1828-Union of India & Anr. Vs. Parvati Devi & Ors.
29. Apart from these case laws, recently this Court while dealing with the contentions raised by the respective parties in SB Civil Second Appal No.203/2010 - Om S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 18/23 Prakash Bhati vs. LRs. Of Har Kanwar decided on 11.08.2011 in somewhat similar circumstances, this Court held as under:
"9. The Indian Courts have also held similarly that eviction of tenant can be sought for the bonafide need likely to arise in near future. If a party who is aware of the nature of proceedings files an application for eviction on the basis of bona fide requirement which may come into existence in future cannot be punished by refusing to entertain such petition on the ground that the need is not present when he filed the petition. Knowing fully well that a reasonable need may arise in near future and securing eviction decree even though such bonafide need is established may take reasonable time, the landlord can very well initiate the action well in time in view of bonafide need which he envisages, is likely to arise in near future. "A stitch in time saves nine" is a well known quotation and that means to prevent an injury one may take appropriate measures well in time.
Likewise if the landlord is of the opinion that the bonafide need may arise in near future, he may initiate action for eviction of the tenant even prior to actually arising of S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 19/23 such need which in course of time would be established before the Court of law and while the decree of eviction is passed, such bonafide need would be clearly before the court of law. While the landlord cannot seek eviction on whims and desire only and need should be bonafide, at the same time, bonafide need need not be absolute, compelling and dire need which if not fulfilled, the landlord should be seen to be suffering misery or irreparable loss. The bonafide need of the landlord lies somewhere in between and it is the landlord, who is the best judge to really assess such need and make his planning and apply to the Court for eviction if landlord is of the opinion that the suit premises would be required for the bonafide need of his or her own; or his or her children or grand- children in near future.
10. In the case of T. Sunil Kumar V/s M/s S.G. Edulgri and sons reported in AIR 1993 Andhra Pradesh 205, the learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradhes High Court held as under:
"11. As the petitioners were studying at the time of filing of the petition and as one of them was a minor, it was contended that there was no bona fide requirement of the S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 20/23 premises at the time when they filed the petition for eviction. It is not necessary that the need for starting business should exist on the date of suit and the plaintiff can file a suit in respect of his requirement which is to be in near future vide Hemran Nima v. Rajnarayan, 1980 MP RCJ 65.
In another decision reported in 1974 RCR between Padma Rammurthy v. M. Ragha, 1974 RCR (Hyd.) 197, it held that, it is true that the need for personal occupation must be present, but it cannot also be lost sight of the fact that disposal of rent cases do take time and, therefore, a petition filed in the year 1969 for requirement of premises in 1971 on the ground that the landlord would retire and thereafter he wishes to settle down, cannot be dismissed that the need is not present.
12. It is a matter of common knowledge that proceedings for eviction of a tenant cannot be finalized at least within a period of five years if there is contest between the parties. So, if a party who is aware of the nature of the proceedings filed an application for eviction on the basis of bona fide requirement which may come into existence in future cannot be punished by refusing to entertain such petition on the S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 21/23 ground that the need is not present when he filed the petition. It should be remembered that this petition for eviction was filed in the year 1979 but still the same has not been finally disposed of. After all the petitioners were studying intermediate at the time when the petition was filed. So, it is not a course which could not be given up in the middle in the normal circumstances even if the respondent vacates the premises so as to say that there was no bona fide requirement. Further, it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the petitioners have taken some other premises situated at Maredpalli on rent from P.W.2 for commencing business. This is a subsequent event which would go to show that the petitioners bona fide required the premises. In appropriate cases, events subsequent to the filing of eviction suit can be taken notice of and can be duly considered by the court provided the same is relevant in determining the question of bona fide requirement."
30. On a combined scanning of all the propositions of law in the cited judgments at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that weight of the authorities strongly lies in favour of the respondent-landlord in the present case and first appellate court rightly and justly ordered the eviction S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 22/23 reversing the findings of the trial court which was not based on the cogent reasons and in the opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for further consideration by this Court.
31. Consequently, this appeal of the defendant- tenant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
32. The appellant-defendant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent-landlord within a period of six months from today and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2000/- per month commencing from July, 2012 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.391/2011 JEEV RAJ VS. OM PRAKASH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6th JULY, 2012 23/23 incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over to the respondent-landlord within a period of six months from today, besides execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent landlord shall also be entitled to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI)J. Anil/ Item No.23