Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shankar Singh vs Rukmani Bai &Ors; on 2 September, 2016
S.B. CWP No. 11666/2016
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11666/2016
Shankar Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, by-caste Rajput, aged about 48
years, R/o Near Khari Bavri, Jhalawar, Tehsil Jhalarapatan, District
Jhalawar (Raj.).
Petitioner/Non-applicant/Tenant
1.Rukmani Bai W/o Lt. Lalu Ram Sharma, By Caste Brahmin R/o
Near Khari, Nala Mohalla Jhalawar, Tehsil Jhalarapatan, District
Jhalawar (Raj.)
Deceased through Legal Representatives
1/1. Girija Girijesh D/o Mohan Lal W/o Omprakash Shama By Caste
Brahmin R/o New Master Colony, Jhalawar
1/2 Anil Sharma @ Gopal S/o Mohan Lal Sharma By Caste Brahmin
R/o Near Khari Kuiya, Jhalawar.
1/3. Ashok Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma By Caste Brahmin R/O
Near Khari Kuiya, Jhalawar.
1/4. Satyaprakash Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma By Caste Brahmin
R/O Near Khari Kuiya, Jhalawar.
1/5. Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma By Caste Brahmin
R/o Near Khari Kuiya, Jhalawar.
1/6. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Mohanlal Sharma, By Caste Brahmin
R/O Mangalam Cement Company Modak, Tehsil Ramganjmandi,
District Kota.
1/7. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma By Caste
Brahmin R/O Near Khari Kuiya, Jhalawar.
Respondent-Applicant/Landlord
Date of Order: 2nd September, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Mr. Amit Dadhich, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sameer Sharma, for the respondent.
The present petition has been filed by the tenant, who S.B. CWP No. 11666/2016 2/3 is aggrieved against the concurrent finding returned by the two courts below, whereby plea raised by the landlord that the demised premises is required by him for bona fide personal necessity has been upheld.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses. On the observation made by this Court, that this Court cannot re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence being a third court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will be satisfied in case sufficient time is granted to the petitioner to make alternate arrangement.
The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Counsel for the parties have jointly stated that in case tenant is granted one year's time to vacate the premises, same will be just and appropriate.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that due sanctity ought to be granted to the broad consensus arrived between the parties. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with following directions:
(i) That the petitioner shall file an undertaking before Rent Tribunal that he shall vacate the premises within one year from filing of the undertaking before the Rent Tribunal.
(ii) The petitioner shall file the undertaking before the Rent Tribunal on or before 23.9.2016.
(iii) The petitioner shall deposit entire arrears of rent, if due, along with 9% interest.S.B. CWP No. 11666/2016 3/3
(iv) That the petitioner shall specifically state in the undertaking that he shall pay the rent in advance for each month on or before 7th day of each month.
(v) In the undertaking, it shall also be specifically stated that in case the petitioner commit two consecutive defaults, the executing court shall proceed with the eviction of petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law.
(vi) The petitioner shall also specifically state in the undertaking that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises in good condition to the landlord within one year commencing from 23.9.2016.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Mak/-
74