Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 397 (KAR)

S. NARAHARI v. S. PANKAJA

2001-05-29

M.P.CHINNAPPA

body2001
CHINNAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE undisputed facts are that the first respondent is the wife and Respondents No. 2 to 4 are daughters of Sri C. B. Shankar Rao who was the owner of the property bearing No. 140, Margosa Road, malleshwaram, Bangalore admeasuring 100 x 45 ft wherein the petitioners of these two petitions are the tenants of the non-residential premises more fully described in the schedule and paying admitted quantum of rent. Sri C. B. Shankar Rao passed away in the Year 1989 leaving behind his wife and daughters as his legal heirs. The 4th respondent married one Sharkar Rao in the year 1991 and both of them are practicing advocates of this Bar. They are living in a rented house situated adjacent to the premises and running their law chambers from that residence. The respondent filed HRC No. 66 and 67/94 on the file of Small Causes Judge, Bangalore claiming possession under Section 21 (1) (h) and (j) of the Act alleging that the 4th respondent intends to renovate and remodel the property which are in occupation of the petitioners and to occupy the same for her residence and also to use certain portion as their Law chambers as they are living in a rented premises. It is also alleged that her requirement is both reasonable and bonafide. Besides that renovation and remodeling cannot be effected without the petitioners being evicted. As other premises are available within the vicinity, no hardship would be caused to the tenants. The tenants have denied all the averments in toto and in specific terms by iiling their written objections. They further alleged that if they are evicted, greater hardship would be caused and no bonafide or reasonable grounds are made out by the respondents herein. According to the tenants, it is only a ruse to oust them from the premises for gaining more rent. It is also the case of the tenants that a room vacated by one of the petitioners herein on the ground that the landladies require the premises for their occupation was let out to one Sri Naik for higher rent notwithstanding the fact that the respondents should have occupied the same. After examining the evidence, the Court below by separate orders allowed the petitions under Section 21 (1) (h) and dismissed the claim of the respondents under Section 21 (1) (j) of the act. After examining the evidence, the Court below by separate orders allowed the petitions under Section 21 (1) (h) and dismissed the claim of the respondents under Section 21 (1) (j) of the act. Being aggrieved by these two orders, the tenants preferred these two petitions. However, the landladies admittedly have not questioned the order of dismissal passed by the Court below under Section 21 (1) (j) of the Act. ( 2 ) AFTER having heard the learned advocates appearing for therespective parties, this common order is passed as the claims of the landladies in both the petitions are similar and the main grounds urged by the tenants in these petitions are identical. ( 3 ) IT may also be mentioned here that the respondents filed thesepetitions initially claiming ihat the petition schedule premises are required by the 3rd respondent for running a shop with the assistance of son of the 2nd respondent. It is also father alleged that her husband who is Major in the Army intends to settle down in bangalore and they have no other premises for their occupation, etc. Subsequently, the petitions were amended alleging that the petition schedule premises are required by the 4th respondent for renovating and remodelling the same to make it suitable for her residence and Law chambers for herself and her husband who are practicing advocates. The premises are ground door portion situated at Margosa Road, Malteshwaram which is one of the business center. There are two shops admeasuring 10 x 13 ft and another room situated in the upstairs measuring 4 x 5 ft. It is also an admitted fact that there is a staircase directly leading from the road to the first floor of the building which is in possession of one Sri Naik. The respondents claim that he is only occupying tne room as a licence and not as a tenant, etc. A Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report to the Court as per Ex. P2g. He also prepared a plan as per Ex. P3 showing the measurement of the property. The respondents have examined fourth respondent as PW-1 and one nagabhushan Rao as PW-2 to establish the Will executed by shankar Rao. Both the tenants have examined themselves as RW1 in each case. P2g. He also prepared a plan as per Ex. P3 showing the measurement of the property. The respondents have examined fourth respondent as PW-1 and one nagabhushan Rao as PW-2 to establish the Will executed by shankar Rao. Both the tenants have examined themselves as RW1 in each case. ( 4 ) THE main contention of the petitioner-tenants is that there isno jural relationship between the petitioners and the respondents; on the other hand they claim that the same has not been established by the respondent-landladies. It is also elaborately argued by the learned Counsel appearing for both the petitioner-tenants that they were inducted as tenants by deceased Shankar Rao and he died in the year 1989 and thereafter the tenants have deposited the rent in the Bank as per the instructions of first respondent. The petitioners were not aware of any partition and allotment of share in favour of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the tenants were depositing the rents in the Bank in the name of the first respondent and subsequently, the name of 4th respondent was also included and made it appear that it is a joint account. On that ground, the respondents claim that the petitioners have accepted the 4th respondent as their landlady and they have paid the rent and therefore, they are estopped from pleading that there no relationship of landlord and tenants. This question has been gone into by the court below and held that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. While questioning this finding, the petitioners submitted that the respondents have suppressed all the material particulars and filed the petitions as indicated above, the third respondent requires the premises but later on it was amended as if the petition premises are required by the 4th respondent. In view of this the petitioners submit that these petitions deserve to be allowed. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that there is no attornment of tenancy. Subsequently, the respondents have amended the petitions alleging that the properties were divided amongst the respondents and the petition schedule premises were allotted to the share of the 4th respondent and thus, she has become an absolute owner of the same. During cross-examination, it is brought out that the deceased shankar Rao has executed a Will dated 10. 4. 1988 as per Ex. During cross-examination, it is brought out that the deceased shankar Rao has executed a Will dated 10. 4. 1988 as per Ex. P18 in hrc No. 67/94 and a copy of which is marked as Ex. P17 in HRC no. 66/94 and this Will has come into force immediately after the death of Shankar Rao in the year 1989. It is also relevant to mention that both the petitions came to be filed on 13. 1. 94 i. e. much after the will has come into force. In view of this, the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitions as brought were not maintainable. From the perusal of the Will, it is clear that the property bearing Old No. 140, Margosa Road was partitioned amongst these respondents equally. It also further reads thus: "it is my desire that the properties should not be divided amongst the members of my family till such time that my third daughter marriage is celebrated. Any liabilities that may be incurred towards the expenses of the wedding should be cleared out of the rents received and till such time that the liabilities are repaid, my three daughters shall maintain their mother financially". ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the third daughter i. e. 4th respondent hereinmarried in the year 1991. That means to say that as on the date of filing these petitions, partition had come into effect in view of the will executed by Shankar Rao. The respondents also admitted that the properties were orally partitioned amongst themselves and on the basis of the will they have given clear effect to the intention of their father under the will. The Corporation also has assigned numbers to the respective shares and they have been paying the taxes into the Corporation in respect of their own properties. Inspite of that the respondents 1 to 3 have joined to file these petitions against the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that the Will was executed and accepted by these respondents, the said Will was not even referred to in the petitions; on the other hand, the petition was amended only to bring out that the properties were orally partitioned amongst the respondents. That being the position, the petitioners have alleged that the respondents have concocted just to bring out that the 4th respondent requires the premises for her bonafide use and occupation. That being the position, the petitioners have alleged that the respondents have concocted just to bring out that the 4th respondent requires the premises for her bonafide use and occupation. This argument will have to be considered in the light of the fact that the 3rd respondent subsequently constructed ground floor and the first floor in the vacant space claiming that that portion was allotted to hes. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the property is considered to be a joint property, the construction put up by the 3rd respondent herein who is the sister of the 4th respondent could have enured to the benefit of the 4th respondent also and she could have occupied the premises as she is the joint owner of the property. This argument is very convincing as the respondents are the petitioners in HRC Cases filed by them against the petitioners. If the property is considered to be a joint property, the construction put up by the 3rd respondent cannot be considered as an individual property. But from the perusal of the will and also the claim made by the respondents, it is clear that the property was divided amongst the legal representatives of deceased shankar Rao and it was in consonance with the Will executed by him. The parties have also acted on this and orally partitioned and the Corporation also has effected the change of Khatha. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the building constructed by the 3rd respondent could have been occupied by the 4th respondent instead of letting it to some other person cannot be accepted. ( 7 ) IT is true that respondents No. 1 to 3 are not necessary partiesto these proceedings but that itself would not be a ground to reject the petition holding that the properties will continue to be joint properties as against the documents and also unrebutted evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. Therefore, this argument was rightly rejected by the Court below. ( 8 ) WITH this background, it is now necessary to refer to certaindecisions cited by the learned Counsel. In BHUPENDRA N. PATEL vs HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANI the Court has held : "the plea that property was partitioned cannot be suspected simply because the matter is under litigation under the Rent control Act". ( 8 ) WITH this background, it is now necessary to refer to certaindecisions cited by the learned Counsel. In BHUPENDRA N. PATEL vs HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANI the Court has held : "the plea that property was partitioned cannot be suspected simply because the matter is under litigation under the Rent control Act". Their Lordships of Supreme Court in S. K. SATTAR SK MOHD vs gundappa AMABADAS held that where premises jointly owned by several persons, while a co-owner cannot alone maintain a suit for eviction of tenant inducted on behalf of all the co-owners, he can do so if pursuant to a partition by metes and bound effected amongst all the co-owners, the said premises falls to his share, tenant can show that partition was not bonafide and a sham- after partition a part of the demised premises, a shop, falling to the share of appellant-Information given to the tenant accordingly and thereafter suit for eviction filed by appellant- Tenant's contention that the shop having been let out on behalf of several owners, he could not be evicted at the instance of one of them as tenancy was indivisible accepted by High Court-during pendency of the appeal before the supreme Court, the remaining portion of the shop purchased by the tenant from the person to whose share it had fallen, their Lordships have held that eviction suit is maintainable. ( 9 ) IN this case also there was a doubt in regard to the partitionto be effected whether immediately or after the death of Shankar rao in view of the clause contained in the will. To avoid this confusion, it is obvious that all the persons were joined as petitioners before the Court below. Therefore, it is clear that only on the ground that the 4th respondent became the owner itself cannot be a ground to allow these petitions. ( 10 ) IT is also held by their Lordships of Supreme Court thatpartition of Joint family property by family arrangement is not a transfer within the meaning of Section 5 as family arrangement presupposes existence of antecedent title in the parties and it only defines their separate titles. Partition effected by a partition decree in a suit is a transfer under Section 2 (d ). However, no decision is rendered on this anomalous situation and the question was left open. Partition effected by a partition decree in a suit is a transfer under Section 2 (d ). However, no decision is rendered on this anomalous situation and the question was left open. Therefore, it is clear that there was no transfer of property necessitating the respondents to issue notice of attornment to the petitioners. ( 11 ) THE Privy Counsel in APPROVER vs RAMA SUBBA AIYANand OTHERS considered the question as to what amounts to division in status of a joint family coparcenary interest. in V. N. SARIN vs AJITH KUMAR POPLA; AND ANOTHER their lordships have held that the partition of Hindu Joint family, considering the nature of transaction is not a transfer. The Division Bench of Patna High Court in Smt. KALAWATHI tripathi AND OTHERS vs Smt. DAMAYANTI DEVI AND another held that attornment of tenant not a condition precedent to create relationship of landlord and tenant between transferee and tenant and to give validity to the transfer. This Court in BHURALAL M. JOGANI vs Smt. K. G. JAYALAKSHMI had gone into the question of estoppel considering the fact that in the petition statement filed earlier the tenant admitted that he is the tenant and paying the rents to the landlady. Similarly their Lordships of Supreme Court in decision reported in PAL SINGH vs SUNDAR SINGH by LRs7 held that there is the estoppel of a tenant under Section 116 of the Evidence Act which was a recognition and statutory assimilation of the equitable principles underlying the estoppel in relation to tenants. Moreover, in the instant case the rent had all along been collected by the landlord who filed the eviction petition. ( 12 ) IN this case also as stated above both the tenants wereremitting the amount to the joint account of the first and fourth respondents herein and it is now not open to them to say that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. ( 13 ) CONTROVERTING this submission the, learned Counsel for thepetitioners submitted that the will was not pleaded in the petition and also no evidence was let in but only at the time of cross examination, it was brought out and therefore, there was suppression of truth with a view to suggest falsehood in the case of the respondents. Therefore, these petitions deserve to be allowed on this ground alone. Therefore, these petitions deserve to be allowed on this ground alone. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance ona decision rendered by the Supreme Court in BHAGAWATIPRASAD vs V. CHANDRAMAUL wherein it is held that if a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon it, if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. ( 15 ) IN the case on hand, both the tenants were aware of the Willexecuted by deceased Shankar Rao and they had brought out in the cross-examination and also taking into account the fact that oral partition was effected on the basis of the will executed by Shankar rao, it cannot be said that the respondents suppressed the facts and it would not in any way improve the case of the tenants/ petitioners herein. It is also relevant to refer to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in KEETARLAL SEAL vs MARILAL SEAL and ANOTHER wherein it is held that the Court would be slow to throw out a claim on a mere technicality of pleading when the substance of the thing is there and no prejudice is caused to the otherside, however clumsily or inartistically the plaint may be worded. In any event, it is always open to a Court to give a plaintiff such general or other relief as it deems just to the same extent as if it had been asked for, provided that occasions no prejudice to the other side beyond what can be compensated for in costs. ( 16 ) THEIR lordships of Supreme Court in Smt. PREMLATHA vsarhant KUMAR JAIN held that where both the parties adduced evidence the question of burden of proof loses its importance. ( 17 ) IN a decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 2085 their lordshipshave held that an admission, unless explained, furnishes the best evidence. The Calcutta High Court in LIONEL EDWARDS LTD. vs STATE held that documents are either proved by witnesses or marked on admission. ( 17 ) IN a decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 2085 their lordshipshave held that an admission, unless explained, furnishes the best evidence. The Calcutta High Court in LIONEL EDWARDS LTD. vs STATE held that documents are either proved by witnesses or marked on admission. When it is marked on admission without reservation, the contents are not only evidence but are taken as admitted, the result being the contents cannot be challenged either by way of cross- examination or otherwise. Further in a decision RAGHUNATH G. PANHALE vs M/s chaganlal SUNDARJI AND CO. it is held that the word 'reasonable', Connotes that the requirement or need is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire. The word 'requirement' coupled with the word reasonable means that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. ( 18 ) THE learned Advocates for tenants have vehemently arguedthat the 4th respondent is well settled in the premises where she has been residing without any hindrance along with her husband and also having their law office which is admittedly adjacent to the petition schedule premises. Further, the 4th respondent is residing with the 1st respondent who is her mother etc. Even otherwise also there is no threat of eviction. Hence the claim is not bonafide or reasonable. SMT. PRATIVA DEVI vs V. KRISHNAN (1987 (2) Rent control Reporter Page 580) it is held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Court to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. MEENAL EKNATH KSHIRSAGAR vs TRADERS AND agencies availability of alternative accommodation, irrespective of its suitability, not decisive landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. This Court in LAKSHMIKANTHAMMA vs M/s. SAREE MANDIR has held that whether premises belonging to the landlord is suitable for his occupation or not, is essentially a matter which landlord will have to take decision. Their lordships SARLA AHUJA vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE company LTD have held that it is unnecessary to make endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. Their lordships SARLA AHUJA vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE company LTD have held that it is unnecessary to make endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. In RAGHAVENDRA KUMAR vs FIRM PREM MACHINERY company it is held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purposes and he has got complete freedom in the matter. AIR 1999 SC 113 it is held that suit on ground of bonafide requirement is not liable to be dismissed on mere proof that landlord is having other premises of his own in the city. In PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA vs HAKIMUDDIHSAIFI18 their lordships have held that it is not incumbent upon landlord to disclose that he is in possession of residential accommodation and further prove that it is not suitable for nonresidentiai purposes, the landlord cannot be non-suitable on such extraneous grounds. , this Court in PREMCHAND GUPTA vs P. SURYANARAYANA and ANOTHER the landlord's desire to stay in his own house is incidental to his proprietary right. Because of the rent restriction Act, his absolute right is curtailed and required to follow the procedure provided in the Act. His right is not dependent on his landlord's action, where he is a tenant. In ILR 1995 KAR 1400, this Court has held that the landlord residing in tenanted premises is entitled to eject tenant from building owner need not first file suit for ejectment so as to enable landlord to eject tenant from building. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a decision reported in AIR 2000 AP 32 has held that landlord was a practicing lawyer, his rented premises was very small and on mezzaman floor insufficient for keeping library and office furniture and even to have a ceiling fan fixed- plea of bonafide requirement reasonable. It is further a bar to claim eviction if landlord is already in possession of another nonresidentiai premises is not applicable when the landlord is possessing it as tenant. Similar is the view expressed by their Lordships of Supreme Court in HIRALAL KAPUR vs PRABHU CHOUDHURY it is held that in ascertaining the bonafide need of residence, in the case of a lawyer, the fact that a room has to be used as an office cannot be a consideration extraneous to the scope and content of the Act. Similar is the view expressed by their Lordships of Supreme Court in HIRALAL KAPUR vs PRABHU CHOUDHURY it is held that in ascertaining the bonafide need of residence, in the case of a lawyer, the fact that a room has to be used as an office cannot be a consideration extraneous to the scope and content of the Act. In VENKAPPAIAH vs M. S. PAPANNA it is held that in the absence of circumstances indicative of the fact that he was actuated by oblique motives, such as the intention to claim enhancement in rent or similar monetary benefits, the claim of the landlord has to be held bonafide. fn T. N. SHANKAR RAO vs S. A. WAJID it is held that inconvenience which is likely to be caused to a tenant when he is ordered to be evicted on account of the shifting of his established business and the likelihood of his having to pay a iittle higher rent for alternative accommodation are no grounds for not making an order of eviction in favour of the landlord. In a decision reported in Smt. G. KAUSHALYA DEVI vs ghanshyamdas the Supreme Court has held that the contention of the tenant that since the landlord is already having his business in a leased premises of which he is in possession, he cannot seek eviction of his tenant, held unacceptable. ( 19 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents also placedreliance on a decision in SHRI KHADER SHERIFF vs SHRI SYED mohamood wherein this Court has decided that a landlord in the face of the dispute between himself and other members of the family is entitled to maintain a petition. ( 20 ) SRI C. S. Kothavale the learned Counsel for the petitionershas vehemently argued that even if the rent is received by one of the co-owners itself is not sufficient to maintain the petition solely on the ground that he was receiving the rent. In support of this argument, he also placed reliance on a decision in NIRANJAN DASS vs TRILOK CHAND wherein Their Lordships have held that where the property on the death of the original owner devolving on several co-owners one of such co-owners even if authorised by the rest to receive the rent on his own account is not a specified landlord. Hence he is not entitled to maintain an application tor eviction under Section 15 (2) of the Act ( 21 ) IN this case, as stated above even accepting that the rentwas being paid to the respondents 1 and 2 and to avoid this difficulty, the legal representatives of Shankar Rao have been impleaded as petitioners before the Court below who are the respondents herein. Therefore, it is not now open to the petitioners to say that the petition is not maintainable on that ground. ( 22 ) IN MYSORE CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL AGENCIES andothers vs J. M. A. AHAMED MOIDEEN and OTHERS26 this Court has held that even if the landlords are residing in a rented house, in the absence of bonafides, their petitions for evicting their tenants will fail. ( 23 ) FROM the decisions referred to above, it is abundantly dearthat their Lordships of the Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that if the landlord is residing in a rented premises, even if there is no apprehension of being evicted, is entitled to maintain the petition. ; ( 24 ) IN the case on hand, P. W. 1 has categorically stated that shehas been residing in a rented premises and that evidence after analytical examination was accepted by the Court below. In addition to that, the landlord also has contemplated to take action against the 4th respondent and her husband for eviction from the premises. It is also not in dispute that the 4th respondent and her husband are practicing advocates and they intend to open their law office and also by modifying the building to have their residence in the premises which is allotted to their share. Therefore, I am fully convinced that the Court has rightly accepted that the requirement of the 4th respondent is just and reasonable and it is not. a mere desire to evict the petitioners. It is also clear that unless these petitioners are evicted, the premises cannot be renovated and modified according to their convenience. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also has vehemently argued that the respondent being 26. 1982 (1) KLC 334 rich and having sufficient funds think that they can put up a building over the existing building as there is a facility of staircase directly from the main road to the top floor. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also has vehemently argued that the respondent being 26. 1982 (1) KLC 334 rich and having sufficient funds think that they can put up a building over the existing building as there is a facility of staircase directly from the main road to the top floor. This argument is also unsustainable in view of the various decisions cited above, as it is not open to the petitioners to dictate terms to the landlord as to how he should use the property. There is no evidence to show that the existing building is strong enough to with-hold the first floor portion to be put up on this petition schedule property. Therefore, it is clear that it cannot be accepted that there is an alternative for the respondents to occupy the premises without the petitioners being disturbed. ( 25 ) SRI K. N. Chandraprasad the learned Counsel for one of thepetitioners herein submitted that if pleadings are not there in vital matters and if there is conflict and confusing evidence regarding the need pleaded, it shall have to be held that the requirement pleaded is neither reasonable nor bonafide. In the light of the discussion made above, I hold that this argument also is unsustainable. Therefore, I am fully convinced that the Court below has rightly held that the requirement of the respondents/landlord are bonafide as well as reasonable. ( 26 ) IT is further contended. by the petitioners that the alternativeaccommodation are not available and in the event the petitioners are evicted, they would be put to greater hardship and no hardship would be caused to the respond mi/landlord. It is specifically pleaded and also evidence is let in to show that alternative accommodation is available in that area. Just because one of the petitioners is dealing in a particular type of medicine itself is not a ground to hold that greater hardship would be caused to them. On the other hand, the respondent no. 4 and her husband who are living in a rented premises and being under the threat of eviction seeking possession of the property and thereby it is clear that greater hardship would be caused to them. On the other hand, the respondent no. 4 and her husband who are living in a rented premises and being under the threat of eviction seeking possession of the property and thereby it is clear that greater hardship would be caused to them. ( 27 ) AT this stage, it must also be mentioned that new constructionput up by the 3rd respondent ought to have been and should have been given to the 4th respondent also is untenable as the 3rd respondent is the owner of the property and she constructed the building. Even subsequent acquisition of a building by one of the co-owners itself is not a ground to reject the claim of the other co- owners who have been alloted with the petition schedule property. ( 28 ) THE Court below also has considered the feasibility of partialeviction and taking into consideration the requirement of the R-4 as detailed above, the Court below has rightly held that partial eviction is not possible. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I am of the view that the order of the Court below does not call for interference. Hence, the petitions are liable to be rejected. ( 29 ) THE learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners howeversubmitted that in the event this Court were to come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the petitions, reasonable time may be granted to the petitioners to deliver vacant possession of the. schedule property. Admittedly, the petitioners are using the premises for non- residential premises where they are running their business and they require time to make some alternative arrangements before delivering possession of the property and further the respondents have been agitating this matter right from 1994 and they require the premises urgently for their occupation and that can be done only after modifying and renovating the building. That being the case and after giving my thoughtful consideration, I hold one year's time is just and reasonable in this case. , ( 30 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petitions are dismissed directing thepetitioners to deliver vacant possession of the premises on or before 1. 6. That being the case and after giving my thoughtful consideration, I hold one year's time is just and reasonable in this case. , ( 30 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petitions are dismissed directing thepetitioners to deliver vacant possession of the premises on or before 1. 6. 2002 subject to the following conditions: (a) The petitioners shall pay the arrears of rent, if any, and the future rent as and when it falls due; (b) that they shall not induct any other person into the premises; and (c) that they shall give an undertaking within one month from this date before the trial Court to the effect as indicated above. --- *** --- .