Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13745 (RAJ)

UMRAO SON OF LATE SHRI GYARSHI LAL NAI v. MAHESH KUMAR SON OF LATE SHRI BUDHRAM CHOUDHARY

CSA/205/2025 · 2025-05-16

Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:20760] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 205/2025 1. Umrao Son Of Late Shri Gyarshi Lal Nai, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Phoolchand Son Of Late Shri Gyarshi Lal Nai, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Appellants Versus Mahesh Kumar Son Of Late Shri Budhram Choudhary, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Mohalla Bachhri, Town Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini Mr. Deshraj Sain Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta Mr. Pramod Kumar Bansal Ms. Sampati Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 16/05/2025 The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2025 passed by Additional District Judge No.4, Kotputli, Jaipur (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) in First Civil Regular Appeal No.3/2020, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2019 passed by Civil Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No.38/1999 whereby the trial [2025:RJ-JP:20760] (2 of 3) [CSA-205/2025] Court decreed the respondent-plaintiff’s (for short ‘the plaintiff’) suit for eviction and recovery of rent. Learned counsel for the defendants, on instruction of his clients, has not pressed this appeal on merits. The only prayer made by him is that time upto 30.11.2026 may kindly be granted to the defendants to vacate the tenanted shop/premises (for short ‘the premises’). Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, on instructions of his client, has no objection in granting the time as prayed for by the learned counsel for the defendants for vacating the tenanted premises. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties, this second appeal is being decided with the following terms:- 1. The defendants shall be entitled to continue in possession of the tenanted premises uptill 30.11.2026 but not beyond that, subject to condition that they will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the plaintiff on or before 30.11.2026. 2. The defendants shall deposit arrears of rent and mesne profit, if any, due towards them upto 31.05.2025 within a month from today in the Bank account of the plaintiff and thereafter, from 01.06.2025, till 30.11.2026, the defendants shall continue to deposit the mesne profit at the rate so fixed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate court in the bank account of the plaintiff by 15th of each succeeding month. The plaintiff shall furnish his bank account details to the defendants/ their advocate within 15 days from today for deposition of the monthly mesne profit. [2025:RJ-JP:20760] (3 of 3) [CSA-205/2025] 3. The defendants shall not alienate and/or otherwise create third party right or hand over possession of the premises in question to any other person. 4. If the defendants fail to deposit the mesne profit consecutively for four months, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to execute the decree without any further reference to the Court. Further, the defendants shall submit an undertaking on oath incorporating the aforesaid conditions before the learned trial court within four weeks from today. In case, the defendants fail to submit the undertaking as aforesaid within four weeks from today and/or commit breach of any of the conditions of this order, the plaintiff shall also be entitled to execute the decree forthwith and obtain possession of the tenanted premises in accordance with law and it will be open for the plaintiff to initiate contempt proceedings in the Court as well. The second appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Consequent upon the disposal of the second appeal, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/35