Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1336 (RAJ)

Mohd. Faizal v. Vijay Kumar

2013-07-23

GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - By the judgment dated 29.08.2012, the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the judgment and certificate dated 02.08.2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Application No.202/2004. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Tribunal as well as the Rent Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that as a matter of fact, the landlord is having no bonafide necessity to have the rented premises. It is asserted that the son of the landlord is involved in the business of retreading of tires and for that purpose, he is having a suitable place in a locality known as "Pratap Nagar" at Jodhpur. 3. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. Before narration of the reasons for such non-interference, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition for writ, provided the landlord permits him to retain the premises concerned with him upto 31.03.2014. Learned counsel for the respondent is not having any objection for that. 4. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner is permitted to retain the rented premises with him upto 31.03.2014, provided he furnishes an undertaking before the Rent Tribunal within a period of 15 days from today in the following terms:- 1. He will handover complete vacant possession of the rented premises in question to the respondent on or before 01.04.2014. 2. He shall not part with the possession of the premises or any portion thereof to anybody else before handing over the vacant premises to the respondent. 3. He shall make the payment of rent to the respondent month by month and that is before Seventh day of every month. 4. The arrears of rent and also the mesne profit as determined and awarded shall be paid to the respondent within a period of one month from today. 5. In the event, the petitioner does not submit an undertaking as aforesaid or violate any condition thereof, then the respondent would be entitled to get the order of eviction/decree executed.Petition Dismissed. *******