Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction of his tenant with the allegation that the suit property was let out to the defendant/appellant on rent of Rs. 10/-per month by one Chanda Bai. She sold the house in dispute to the plaintiff by sale-deed dated 19.08.1988. Though initially one room was let out to the defendant but he encroached upon the remaining portion of the house, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for possession of the house property with the claim of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month. 3. The defendant denied the plaint allegations and submitted that the house was not belonging to Chanda Bai and in fact, the house was sought to be purchased by Parvati, maternal grand mother of the defendant and mother of Chanda Bai. The defendant was of tender age at that time, however. Parvati obtained the patta in favour of her daughter Chanda Bai. The defendant admitted that Parvati constructed the house in dispute and the defendant is residing in the house in dispute since his childhood. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff wants to grab the house in dispute. 4. On the basis of the pleas, the trial Court framed the issue and the issue No. 1 was whether the house in dispute was purchased in the name of Chanda Bai by the defendants maternal grand mother and whether the construction was raised by the defendants maternal grand mother - Parvati? on the basis of allegation of the plaintiff , the issue was framed whether the defendant is tenant in one room in the house in dispute on rent of Rs. 10/-per month. 5. The trial Court held that Chanda Bai was the owner of the property in dispute which was subsequently purchased by the plaintiff . The defendant is in occupation as tenant in the house. In these circumstances, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff against defendant on 08.03.1984. However, the trial Court decreed the suit for mesne profits from the date of decree i.e., 08.03.1984 only. 6. The defendant/appellant preferred appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 08.03.1984 of the trial Court whereas the plaintiff submitted cross objections for getting the mesne profits from the period for which the suit was filed. However, the trial Court decreed the suit for mesne profits from the date of decree i.e., 08.03.1984 only. 6. The defendant/appellant preferred appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 08.03.1984 of the trial Court whereas the plaintiff submitted cross objections for getting the mesne profits from the period for which the suit was filed. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the present appellant and allowed the cross-objections and modified the decree of the trial Court and granted the decree for mesne profits for the litigation period vide its Judgment and decree dated 16.08.1990. Therefore, this second appeal. 7. The present appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 111.1990 and following substantial questions of law was framed:- “Whether the learned lower Courts have committed serious error in decreeing the suit for possession in respect of the room in occupation and possession of the defendant-appellant as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 10/-without making out any ground for ejectment as required under Section 13(1), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950?” 8. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is admitted fact of the plaintiff that the defendant is tenant in one room, even if it is accepted that the defendant has encroached upon the rest of the house, than no decree of eviction can be passed against the defendant-tenant unless a decree under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is passed because his right as tenant is protected by the Act of 1950. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that now the defendant cannot dispute that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff , who is the successor of Mst. Chanda, the original landlord. It is also submitted that the defendant cannot raise any objection for not framing issue by the trial Court where the suit was filed by the plaintiff on the basis of denial of title by the defendant and both the parties led their evidence with respect to their respective claims and thereafter, two Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff is landlord and defendant is tenant and the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession for entire house including the room which was let out by Mst. Chanda. 10. Chanda. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given by the two Courts below and perused the record. 11. So far as finding of fact is concerned that Mst. Chanda was the owner of the suit property cannot be disputed. The plaintiff purchased the house in dispute from Mst. Chanda vide sale-deed dated 19.08.1981. The defendant in reply denied the title of Mst. Chanda and also denied his character as tenant in the suit property. The issue No. 2 was specifically framed by the trial Court to the effect that whether the room in question was let out to the defendant by Mst. Chanda on rent of Rs. 10/-per month. This issue has been decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/appellant. The defendant failed to lawfully challenge the finding of fact recorded by two Courts below holding the defendant as tenant in the room in question. 12. The grievance of the appellant is that since the appellant is admittedly tenant in one room, therefore, the trial Court has committed illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for the premises which the appellant was occupying as tenant. According to the appellant, even if two Courts below were right in holding that the appellant took possession of the rest of the house illegally, then in a suit for possession on the basis of a title, the decree could have been passed but because of the purchase of house by the plaintiff , he became only landlord of the defendant for one room which is in tenancy of the defendant admittedly. 13. This argument on the face of it may be attractive but has no substance. The plaintiff filed the suit with clear allegation that in one room, the defendant is tenant. The defendant in his written statement denied the title of the plaintiff and even his predecessor unequivocally. The first appellate Court carefully examined the facts of the case and reached to the conclusion that the decree for eviction of the tenant could have been passed lawfully because of the availability and proof of the ground for eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950). The ground for eviction is denial of title. The ground for eviction is denial of title. The defendant tenant in this second appeal also again could not give any explanation to justify any reason for denial of the title of the landlord and his character as tenant. The plea of the defendant that the suit has been decreed for rented premises without making any ground for ejectment as required under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1950 but it is clear from the pleadings of the parties that the ground for eviction is fully made out for eviction of tenant and, therefore, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is decided against the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant prayed that sufficient time may be granted to vacate the suit premises because the appellant is in occupation since last more than 24 years and he will have to make alternative arrangement. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent has serious objection. According to learned Counsel for the respondents, much time has passed after the decree passed by two Courts below and, therefore, in case, this Court finds that some time may be granted to the appellant, a short time only can be allowed. 16. Be it as it may be, the appellant is in occupation of the suit property since long, therefore, looking to the totality of the facts, this Court deems that the appellant be granted some time to vacate the suit shop. 17. Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the appellant furnishes a written undertaking before the trial Court within a period of one month from today that he shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord by or before 31.01.2007 and shall not part with the possession or sublet the suit premises during this period and shall pay all the arrears of rent and decrectal amount, if due, within a period of two months from today before the trial Court or directly to the landlord, the decree under challenge shall not be executed till 01.02.2007. The appellant shall also deposit the rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month of his tenancy in the trial Court. 18. In case of non-compliance of the order or default in payment of rent mentioned above, the decree shall become executable forthwith. 19. With the aforesaid concession, this appeal is dismissed.