JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR v. Kishan Dev

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the petitioner. Mr. G. Bardar for the respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

26.05.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur West whereby the learned Judge has decreed the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-plaintiff and also aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated

26.05.2006, the appellants have challenged both the judgments and decrees in this second appeal. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant alleging therein that the defendant was inducted as tenant in the month of July, 1981 and a rent note in favour of one Channa Mal was 2 executed by the defendant. The plaintiff also claimed a decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity to commence the business of electronic apparatus. The plaintiff further came out with the case that Shop No.447 is in possession of the defendant. The defendant denied the plaint. The defendant pleaded that the entire rent has been paid to the landlord and when he refused to accept the rent, the amount was deposited in the Court under Section 19(A) of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent & Eviction Act. The rate of rent was Rs.400/- per month.

The learned trial Court framed seven issues. The plaintiff examined two witnesses and produced six documents. The defendant examined two witness and produced seven documents. The learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 26.05.2006, decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendant-appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2006 passed by the learned trial Court. The appellant, during the pendency of the appeal, submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The appellant had sought to produce the telephone bills in the name of plaintiff to show that the plaintiff had installed a telephone connection coupled with the photographs of doing business. The application was dismissed. Subsequently, vide judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. 3 After hearing both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law.

But, both the parties at idem that the appellant shall vacate the premises within a period of two years from today. The appellant is directed to submit an undertaking before the learned trial Court that he shall vacate the shop in dispute within two years from today. A month's time is granted for giving such an undertaking before the learned trial Court. In case, the said undertaking is not given within the stipulated period, the plaintiff-respondent shall be free to execute the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2006 within a period of one month. It is hoped that the appellant will adhere to the solemn undertaking given by the appellant before this Court. With these observations, the second appeal is,