JUDGMENT 1. - The learned counsel for the contesting party-respondent No. 1 having put appearance in caveat, while dispensing with the service on the proforma respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (the Tribunals concerned), at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at this stage. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.11.2010 (Annex. 6) whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur has rejected an application moved by the petitioner-tenant for enlargement of time for payment of due amount of rent and mesne profits. 3. The petition for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant was allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur on 11.12.2009 with the following order and directions:- " 49- vr% ;kph@izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ;g ;kfpdk ckcr~ csn[kyh fookfnr ifjlj fo:) v;kph@vizkFkhZ fuEu izdkj ls lO;; Lohdkj dh tkdj vizkFkhZ dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS%& 1- fd og vkt fnukad ls rhu ekg ds vUnj vUnj fookfnr fdjk;slqnk ifjlj ftldk lEiw.kZ fooj.k ;kfpdk ds in la[;k 3 esa fn;k x;k gS] dk 'kkafriwoZd o [kkyh dCtk lgh gkyr esa izkFkhZ dks lqiqnZ dj nsA lkFk gh izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ls cdk;s fdjk;s ds :i esa 1]78]200@& :i;s Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 2- fd mDr izek.k i= ds fofu'p; dh fnukad ls rhu ekg ds vUnj&vUnj vizkFkhZ fookfnr fdjk;slqnk ifjlj [kkyh dj izkFkhZ dks lqiqnZ djrk gS] rks ;kfpdk is'k djus ls ysdj mDr ifjlj [kkyh djus rd orZeku ns; 4]950@& :i;s ekfld fdjk;k mi;ksx miHkksx ds :i esa vr%dkyhu ykHk izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ ls fnykus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA 3- fd ;fn vkt fofu'p; dh rkjh[k ls rhu ekg ds Hkhrj vizkFkhZ fookfnr fdjk;slqnk ifjlj dks [kkyh ugha djrk gS rks jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 20 ( 3 ) ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj pqafd ifjlj ;kfpdk ds vuqlkj jgoklh; iz;kstu ds fy;s fdjk;k ij fn;k x;k Fkk blfy;s mls vkt ls orZeku 4]950@& :i;s ekfld fdjk;s ds nks xqus nj ls var%dkyhu ykHk crkSj mi;ksx miHkksx ds izkFkhZ dks vnk djuk gksxkA 4- fd i{kdkjku ds vihysV vf/kdj.k ds le{k is'k gksus ds fy;s fnukad 15-2-2010 fu;r dh tkrh gSA 5- fd v;kph dks fofu'p; dh ,d izfr fu%'kqYd miyC/k djokbZ tkosA 6- fd rnuqlkj izek.k i= ewfrZc fd;k tkosA " 4. In the appeal preferred against the order aforesaid, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur passed the following interim order on 3.3.2010 staying the execution proceedings for eviction on the condition of payment by the petitioner-tenant:- " vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk Jh0Mh0,e0 HkaMkjh mifLFkrA dk;kZy; fjiksVZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izLrqr vihy fdjk;k vf/kdj.k clhxs iathc) dh tkosA izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls vf/koDrk Jh vks0ih0 esgrk mifLFkr ftUgksaus odkyrukek@eheksa is'k fd;k] izR;FkhZ dks vihy dh udy nh xbZA U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ryc gksA i=koyh okLrs bartkj fjdkMZ o cgl fnukad 19-5-2010 dks is'k gksA varfje vkns'k ij lquk x;kA var% vkns'k gS fd ;fn vihykFkhZ ekfQZQ v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k ds ns; cdk;k fdjk;k ,d ekg esa rFkk Hkfo"; dk fdjk;k fu;ekuqlkj vnk djrk jgsxk] rks izR;FkhZ vihykFkhZ ds fo:) rkQSlyk vihy csn[kyh dh dk;Zokgh btjk; esa ugha djsxkA " 5. It appears that the petitioner-tenant did not make payment of the due amount for quite some time and then, moved the application whereupon the Appellate Tribunal has passed the order impugned. The petitioner submitted that a huge amount was required to be deposited that could not be arranged by him and, in the meantime, his father suffered serious ailments and was required to be taken to Ahmedabad for treatment that resulted in the petitioner incurring substantial expenditure and being engaged in attending on his ailing father. It was also alleged that the particulars of the Bank Account were not supplied to him by the landlord who had levied execution. The petitioner stated that an amount of Rs. 4,70,250/- was payable until the month of November 2010, which he was ready to pay. It was, therefore, submitted that the time for payment may be enlarged and the proceedings in Execution Case No. 26/2010 may be stayed. The respondent-landlord submitted before the Appellate Rent Tribunal that the payment was made by the appellant only after the execution proceedings which was received without prejudice to his rights; and that an amount of Rs. 49,500/- yet remained due. 6. The respondent-landlord submitted before the Appellate Rent Tribunal that the payment was made by the appellant only after the execution proceedings which was received without prejudice to his rights; and that an amount of Rs. 49,500/- yet remained due. 6. The Appellate Rent Tribunal was not impressed with the submissions of the petitioner-tenant and observed that he was only required to make payment as per the order of the Rent Tribunal; and from the documents as placed on record, at the most, the facts were stated about his father being under treatment until 3.9.2010 but then, no such inability of the petitioner for payment of rent for the months of September and October 2010 was seen in the documents. The Appellate Rent Tribunal observed that the reasons as stated by the petitioner do not make out sufficient cause for non-payment of rent and hence, rejected the application. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has taken too rigid a view of the matter; and has not been justified in refusing to condone the delay on the part of the petitioner that occurred for his adverse circumstances. During the course of the submissions in this matter when it was pointed out on behalf of the respondent landlord that an amount of Rs. 49,500/- still remained due, on the queries of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on instructions that the petitioner would be ready to make such payment today itself. At request, the matter was passed over to be taken up in the second call and now, a receipt has been produced on record and it is the admitted position of the parties that the said remaining amount of Rs. 49,500/-. has also been paid by the petitioner to the counsel for the respondent today, that has, of course, been received without prejudice to the rights of the respondent. It has also been assured on behalf of the petitioner that he would take steps to make advance payment of mesne profits @ Rs. 9,900/- per month for the next three months as the matter is fixed in the Appellate Rent Tribunal for hearing on 3.3.2011; and such payment shall be made within two weeks from today. It has also been assured on behalf of the petitioner that he would take steps to make advance payment of mesne profits @ Rs. 9,900/- per month for the next three months as the matter is fixed in the Appellate Rent Tribunal for hearing on 3.3.2011; and such payment shall be made within two weeks from today. It has further been assured on behalf of the petitioner that he shall be ready to proceed with the final hearing of the appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 3.3.2011 and will not seek any adjournment. 8. Having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, even when the petitioner had defaulted in payment of the due amount, taking note of the reasons assigned by him that a huge amount was payable and his ailing father remained under treatment for long; and further, taking note of the fact that the petitioner-tenant has cleared all the arrears; and yet further, taking note of his assurance of not keeping the amount of mesne profits in arrears and proceeding with the hearing of appeal on the given date, in the opinion of this Court, interest of justice shall be served if the execution of certificate for recovery of possession be stayed until disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Rent Tribunal but while putting the petitioner-tenant to specific terms. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 (Annex. 6) is modified and the execution of certificate for recovery of possession against the petitioner-tenant is ordered to remain stayed until disposal of the Appeal (No. 13/2010) by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur while taking note of the assurance stated by the petitioner-tenant, as noticed supra. 10. It is made clear that if, for any reason, the appeal is not heard on 3.3.2011 or there be any delay in its disposal for the reasons beyond the control of the parties, it shall definitely be required of the petitioner-tenant to continue to make payment of mesne profits @ Rs. 9,900/- per month, month by month, on or before 15th day of the succeeding month; and in case of any default now by the petitioner in payment of mesne profits, the landlord shall be entitled to execute the certificate forthwith.There shall be no orders as to costs of this writ petition.Petition allowed. *******