Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1399 (RAJ)

Chainsukh Das Thro’ LR’s v. Mohan Lal Atri

2010-08-06

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13-10-2006 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Civil Judge has decreed the suit for eviction filed by respondent-plaintiff, and also aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9-12-2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal, and upheld the judgment and decree dated 13-10-2006, the appellants have challenged both the judgments and decrees in this second appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff, Mohan Lal Atri, and his brother had rented out a shop, situated in House No.2522, Khazanewalon ka Rasta, to Chainsukh Das and Kajod Mal. Subsequently, after the properties of Mohan Lal and his brother were partitioned, the said shop fell in the share of Mohan Lal. Since Mohan Lal was working as a labourer, and was a sculptor, subsequently, he required the shop for the purpose of manufacturing marble statues, and for the purpose of a show-room for displaying the statues. Thus, he issued a notice dated 5-5-2001 to appellants. Subsequently, he filed a civil suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity. However, during the course of trial, the original tenant Chainsukh Das and Kajod Mal expired. Therefore, their legal representatives, the appellants, were taken on record. The defendants filed written statement and admitted the tenancy. 3. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned trial court had framed six issues. The plaintiff examined himself and four other witnesses and exhibited twelve documents. Similarly, the defendants examined themselves, and two other witnesses. 4. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 13-10-2006, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants-appellants preferred the first appeal, before the learned first appellate court. However, the learned Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 9-12-2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, the present second appeal before this court. 5. Although arguments were addressed at length, but this court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. All the questions are question of fact. Hence, the present second appeal before this court. 5. Although arguments were addressed at length, but this court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. All the questions are question of fact. However, during the course of arguments, the parties are ad-idem that the appellants are willing to vacate the shop in question within nine months from the date of the judgment, and the appellants give a solemn undertaking to this effect. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has no objection if the appellants were to vacate the shop in question within the stipulated period. 6. Therefore, this court directs the appellants-defendants to submit an undertaking within one month, from the date of the judgment, before the trial court that they will vacate the shop in question within nine months, from the date of this judgment. In case the appellants do not submit the undertaking before the trial court, within one month from the date of this judgment, the respondent-plaintiff shall be free to execute the judgment and decree dated 13-10-2006, and to have the shop in question vacated from the appellants. 7. With the above observations, the second appeal, is hereby disposed of.Appeal Dismissed. *******