Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1544 (ALL)

Chandrasen v. Mool Chandra

2014-05-12

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, Aligarh allowing respondent-landlord's application for release of premise in question and appellate order dated 11.02.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Aligarh dismissing petitioner's Appeal No. 03 of 2012 confirming trial court's order. 2. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and learned counsel for the petitioner finding it difficult to assail the same, at the outset stated that petitioner may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premise in question. 3. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find it appropriate that petitioner may be allowed six months' time to vacate the premise in question. Sri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate appearing for petitioner also stated that petitioner undertakes to vacate the premise within aforesaid period. 4. In view of the above, it is provided that petitioner, if file an affidavit within ten days from today before the trial court containing an undertaking that he shall vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord-respondent within six months from today, execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed. It is also made clear that the petitioner-tenant shall continue to pay rent of premise in question to respondent-landlord month-to-month. However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord(s) to proceed for execution of impugned orders immediately thereafter in accordance with law. It is also provided that in case the petitioner-tenant after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question failed to comply with any of the conditions, as aforesaid, he shall be liable to pay for such non compliance of pious undertaking given to the Court an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall also be recovered from petitioners-tenants alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises. 5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is dismissed.