Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 81 (RAJ)

Radha Kishan Todwal v. Ram Niwas (since deceased) Thro’ LR’s. Krishna

2010-01-12

DALIP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, has been preferred by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the learned Executing Court. 3. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that some reasonable time may be allowed to the judgment-debtor, who is the tenant to vacate the premises, as he has entered into an agreement for purchase of a new premises, which would be made available to him by the month of November, 2010 and he would shift his business in the said newly acquired premises. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-decree-holder submitted that the decree-holder would be willing not to execute the decree up-to 30.11.2010, in case certain conditions are imposed to protect the interest and rights of the decree-holder. 5. Upon agreed terms, the judgment-debtor - Radha Kishan Todwal has filed an undertaking before this Court, which has been taken on record. 6. According to the terms of the undertaking, the petitioner - Radha Kishan Todwal has undertaken that he would hand-over the vacant possession of the premises, in dispute to the decree-holder on or before 30.11.2010. The petitioner - Radha Kishan Todwal has further undertaken that from 01.01.2010 up-to 30.11.2010 i.e. the time allowed by this Court to vacate the premises the petitioner shall pay mesne-profit by way of use and occupation charges @ Rs. 4000/- per month to the decree-holder. 7. It is directed that the aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the 15th day of the next succeeding months by the petitioner-Radha Kishan Todwal before the learned Executing Court to be paid to the decree-holder. 8. It has further been stated in the undertaking that the judgment-debtor would hand-over the vacant possession of the premises, in dispute to the decree-holder and shall not part with the possession or sublet it to any third person or create any third party rights in the premises. 9. It has also been agreed and undertaken by the judgment-debtor that he would deposit by way of security an amount of Rs. one-lac, by depositing a cheque bearing No. 044666 drawn on the State Bank of India, Beawar Branch, District Ajmer and to be kept with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as security. 9. It has also been agreed and undertaken by the judgment-debtor that he would deposit by way of security an amount of Rs. one-lac, by depositing a cheque bearing No. 044666 drawn on the State Bank of India, Beawar Branch, District Ajmer and to be kept with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as security. This amount of security shall be kept and would be liable to be paid to the decree-holder, in case the judgment-debtor petitioner fails to hand-over the vacant possession of the premises to the decree-holder on or before 30.11.2010. The judgment-debtor shall within 15-days from today substitute the aforesaid cheque drawn in the name of State Bank of India, Beawar Branch, District Ajmer for Rs. one lack by a Bank Guarantee in favour of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for payment to the decree-holder under order of the Court, in case of default. On furnishing of the aforesaid Bank Guarantee with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court the cheque bearing No. 044666, which is being deposited today would be returned to the petitioner judgment-debtor by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 10. The aforesaid undertaking with the conditions, as mentioned above has been taken on record. 11. It is made clear that in case the petitioner judgment-debtor commits a default in any of the above conditions, the decree-holder would be entitled to execute the decree forthwith and would also be entitled to compensation amount of Rs. one-lac, which has been kept in security with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court under the orders of this Court by encashing the Bank Guarantee. 12. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner commits a default in vacating the premises and handing over the vacant possession to the decree-holder on or before 30.11.2010 the decree-holder in addition to aforesaid amount of Rs. one-lac would be entitled to charges for use and occupation by way of damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month for the period commencing from 01.12.2010 up-to the date the possession is handed over to the decree-holder. 13. one-lac would be entitled to charges for use and occupation by way of damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month for the period commencing from 01.12.2010 up-to the date the possession is handed over to the decree-holder. 13. It is further made clear that in case the decree-holder is not available for any reason for handing over the possession by the petitioner to him on 01.12.2010, the judgment-debtor may apply to the Court and hand-over the possession under the lock and key to the learned Executing Court and the learned Executing Court would depute an officer of the Court to take possession on the very same day. The learned Executing Court would then issue notice to the decree-holder and hand-over the possession to the decree-holder. 14. In the light of the above, the revision petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of.Revision disposed of. *******