1 2025:CGHC:43472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 351 of 2017 1. Jitandra Singh S/o Late Radhakrishna Singh, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Business, R/o Near Bus Dipo, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh .................Defendant ... Appellant versus 1. Kulbhushan Sharma S/o Late Ramakant Sharma, Aged About 30 Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ..................Plaintiff ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey and Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Mr. Prashant Dansena and Mr. Davindra Singh Saluja, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 28.08.2025 1. This is tenant’s second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2016 passed by the learned additional District Judge (FTC), Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 60/2015 by which the appeal filed by the present appellant has been dismissed. 2. The learned first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal has recorded its finding that the appellant’s tenancy has already been canceled by the plaintiff, therefore, he is entitled to get vacant MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.09.30 16:15:07 +0530 2 possession of the suit property. 3. The appeal is pending since 2017 and more than 8 years have already been lapsed. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the respondent have settled their inter se dispute and the appellant/defendant given an undertaking/settlement before this Court on 28.08.2025 which is supported by an affidavit contending that the appellant will vacate the suit premises in question within a maximum period of 15 months from the date of order on or before 25.11.2026. 4. Landlord Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma through video conferencing alongwith Mr. Hari Agrawal alongwith Mr. Prashant Dansena and Mr. Davindar Singh Saluja, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that they have no objection if the suit premises is vacated within 15 months in terms of undertaking given by the appellant before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he will vacate the suit premises on 28.11.2026 even without taking any steps for execution by the landlord plaintiff. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is modified to the extent that by impugned judgment and decree both the Courts below have granted two months will be read as 15 months from today and the remaining part of decree will be remain intact. 7. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish