JUDGMENT : Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. The present second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the defendant-appellant-tenant against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2001 passed by the learned appellate court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal Decree No. 9/98 – Tulsiram v. Mannalal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1998 passed by the learned trial court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.401/95 – Mannalal v. Tulsiram, decreeing the suit for recovery of rent and eviction filed by the plaintiff-landlord, only to the extent of recovery of arrears of rent, however, refusing to grant of eviction decree, in respect of the suit property, a residential house in question situated at Chand Bawdi, Joshion Ki Gali, Jodhpur. 2. 2. The relevant extract of the findings of the learned trial court in the order dated 24.01.1998 is quoted below for ready reference:- ^^rudh la[;k&1%& 10- bl rudh dks izekf.kr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gS\ oknh us vius okn&i= ds iSjk la0 lkr esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd izfroknh dks fdjk;s ij nh xbZ fdjk;slqnk Bkaoksa dh vR;Ur vko';d :i ls ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~HkkoiwoZd futh vko';drk gSA oknh ds ikl miyC/k Bkoksa esa oknh ds fjgk;lh t:jrksa dks iwjk djus ds fy;s vi;kZIr gSA oknh vius Lo;a ds ifjokj esa iRuh] nks iq= o iadt o dkS'ky] nks iqf=;ksa lk/kuk o 'kksHkuk gksuk crk;kA iq= iadt 'kknh lqnk gksuk o O;kikj gsrq ckgj gksuk o dkS'ky lk/kuk o lksHkuk v/;;ujr gksuk crk;kA 11- oknh us oknxzLr Hkou rhu eaftyk gksuk crk;k ftlesa rhljh eafty ¼lSd.M Q~yksj½ o igyh eafty ¼xzkm.M Q~yksj½ izfroknh dks fdjk;s ij fn;k gksuk crk;kA f}rh; eafty QLVZ Q~yksj oknh us Lo;a ds ikl jgokl gsrq gksuk crk;kA lhf<+;kWa ¼uky½ pkSd] cjlkyh o rkjr fljksyk gksuk crk;kA oknh us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa Hkh mDr dFkuksa dh iq"Vh dh gSaA 12- tcfd izfroknh dk dFku jgk gS fd izfroknh us edku fdjk;s ij ugha fy;k cfYd edku dks oknh ds ikl fxjoh j[kk Fkk o C;kt ds cnys oknh dks jkf'k nh tk jgh FkhA oknh dh jgokl dh vko';drk dks ns[krs gq, oknxzLr edku dh izFke eafty xzkm.M Q~yksj esa 22 x 10 QqV dk ,d gky vkxs xSyjh ckFk:e Fkk rFkk ,d lky 15 x 10 QqV nks ekfy;s 10 x 10 QqV ds gSA oknh Lo;a vius ifjokn ds lkFk vius jgoklh; edku Hkksikyx<+ esa jgrk gS tgkWa mldk iq'rsuh edku gSA oknxzLr edku ds izFke eafty QLVZ Q~yksj ij oknh dk jgokl gksuk crk;k vkSj mDr BkWo oknh dh vko';drkuqlkj iw.kZ gSA oknh dks vkSj edku dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA oknh us vius ifjokj esa nks iq= o nks iqf=;kWa gksuk crk;kA cM+k iq= iadt dh 'kknh gks pqdh gS tks fctusl gsrq fgEeruxj esa jgrk gS rFkk nks iqf=;ksa dh Hkh 'kknh gks pqdh gS tks vius llqjky esa jgrh gSA ,d ek= iq= dkS'ky tks fd v/;;u jr gS tks oknh ds ikl jgrk gSA oknh ds ikl jgokl gsrq miyC/k Bkao Lo;a mldh iRuh o iq= dkS'ky jgokl gsrq vR;f/kd gSA oknh ds xokg ujsUnz ih0MCY;w0 9&2] pkUney ih0MCY;w0&3 o dkS'ky ih0MCY;w0&4 us Hkh oknh ds iqf=;ksa 'kknh'kqnk gksuk o llqjky esa jguk rFkk cM+k iq= iadt fgEeruxj esa dk;Zjr gksuk o jguk crk;kA oknh us Hkh ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mldh nksuksa iqf=;ksa tks/kiqj esa gh jgrh gSA iqf=;kWa mlds nkekn o cPps eghus esa 15&20 ckj vkrs tkrs jgrs gSaA muds jgokl gsrq orZeku esa oknh ds ikl dCtklqn Bkao de iM+rs gSaA vkSj oknh Lo;a lsokfuo`r v/;kid gS vkSj vius thfodksiktZu gsrq cPpksa dks V~;w'ku i<+kus gsrq ry eafty dh vko';drk gSA ysfdu oknhus viuh lk{; esa fdlh iq=h] nkekn ;k fdlh V~;w'kudrkZ fo|kFkhZ dks izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izfroknh dh lk{; esa izfroknh rqylhjke MhMCyw&1] mldk iq= ckcwflag ih0MCY;w0&2 x.kirflag MhMCyw&3 o egs'k vkS>k MhMCyw&4 us dFku fd;k gS fd oknh ds ikl dksbZ fo|kFkhZ V~;w'ku gsrq ugha vkrk vkSj oknh ds ikl miyC/k dCtklqn Bkao mlds o mlds ifjokj ds jgokl gsrq ifjiw.kZ gSA oknh }kjk crkbZ xbZ vko';drk ln~Hkkfod o ;qfDr;qDr izrhr ugha gksrh gSA vr% mDr rudh oknh ds fo:) fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k 22- vr%oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknh vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd oknh izfroknh ls p<+s fdjk;s dh jkf'k 2049 ds tB onh 12 rd ds 10]050@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa izfroknh dks fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;fDrdze ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA ,oa oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknh ckcr csn[kyh ifjlj vLohdkj fd;k tk dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks e/;s utj j[krs gq, okn O;; nksuksa i{kdkjkuk viuk viuk ogu djsaxs fu;ekuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ eqfrZc fd;k tkosA ,lMh@& ¼eksgEen lyhe efyd½ vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d0[k0½ ,oa U;kf;d eftLV~sV la[;k&2] tks/kiqj** 3. The relevant extract of the findings of the learned appellate court in the order dated 20.01.2001 is quoted below for ready reference:- 15- fu.kZ; rudh la[;k %& ^^ rudh la[;k 1 oknh dh futh o ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk ds izfr gS ftl laca/k esa oknh us vius okn i= dh pj.k la0 7 esa ;g vfHkdFku fy, gS fd oknh dks fdjk;klqnk BkWaoksa dh vR;Ur vko';d :i ls ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkfod futh vko';drk gSA izfroknh dks ifjlj ds BkWo fdjk;s ij nsus ds i'pkr~ oknh dh vko';drk c<+ xbZ gSA tks BkWao oknh ds dCts esa gS oknh dh fjgk;lh t:jrksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, oks loZFkk vi;kZIr gSaA oknh o mldk ifjokj vR;Ur dfBukbZ ls bu BkWoksa esa jg jgk gSA oknh ds iq= iadt dh 'kknh gky esa gh esa gqbZ gS mlds fy, vyx ls dejs dh vko';drk gS oknh ds ifjokj esa nks yM+fd;kWa ,oa ,d iq= gS tks lHkh i<+kbZ dj jgs gS iq= dkS'ky nloh d{kk esa i<+kbZ dj jgk gS o iq=h lk/kuk lSds.M~h esa o iq=h 'kksHkk twfu;j gk;j lSds.Mjh esa i<+kbZ dj jgh gS buds gsrq vyx cSBdj v/;;u djus gsrq oknh ds ikl dksbZ lqfo/kk ugha gSA 16- i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ij ge ikrs gS fd ih0MCY;w0 1 eUukyky us viuh lk{; esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd izfroknh ds ikl oknxzLr ifjlj okys edku esa nks frgkbZ fgLlk gS rFkk ,d frgkbZ fgLlk vius ikl gksuk crk;kA izfroknh dks izFke eafty xzkm.M Q~yksj esa cjlkyh] if'pe esa ,d dejk] jlksbZ pkSd] nf{k.k esa ,d dejk ,d lky o vksjk o rhljh eafty esa nks dejs izfroknh ds ikl gSA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k fd oknh okLro esa lsokfuo`Rr gks pqdk gS vkSj mlds iq= iadt dh 'kknh 92 esa gqbZ mlds fy, ,d dejs dh vko';drk gS vkSj esjs Lo;a ds ikl lksus mBus] o vius tkus ds fy, nks dejs gh gSA dkS'ky ds i<+kbZ gsrq ,d dejs dh vko';drk gS iq=h 'kksHkk o lk/kuk dh 'kknh gks pqdh gS vksj og tks/kiqj dk fuoklh gksus ds dkj.k mBus cSBus dh vyx O;oLFkk pkfg,A nksuksa gh iqf=;kWa nkekn lfgr vkrh gSA ftuds fy, Bgjus ds fy, dksbZ O;oLFkk ugha gS Lo;a ds ikl dsoy nks dejs crk, gS vkSj lsokfuo`Rr gksus ds ckn V~;w'ku djuk pkgrk gSA fdUrq txg dh deh gksus ds dkj.k V~;w'ku ugha dj ik jgk gwWaa oknh ds xokg ih0MCY;w0 & 2 ujsUnz ds c;ku jgs gS fd oknh ds ikl ,d NksVk dejk] ,d cM+k dejk o ,d jlksbZ o vkSjk jgus ds fy, nks dejs gS cM+h eqf'dy ls fuokl dj jgs gSa yM+ds dh i<+kbZ esa fnDdr gks jgh gS oknh fjVk;j gks pqdk gSA oknh ls feyus tqyus okys yksx vkrs gS vkSj oknh V~;w'ku djuk pkgrk gS yM+fd;kWa vius ifr ds lkFk vkrh gS rks muds Bgjus o cSBus esa fnDdr jgrh gS vkSj izfroknh T;knkrj yw.kkokl esa jgrk gS BkWoksa ij rkyk gh jgrk gSA ih0MCY;w0&03 gS fd oknh ds ikl chp okyh eafty esa nks dejs] ,d gkWy o ,d dhpu gS izfroknh ds ikl rhu dejs] ,d lky] ,d jlksbZ tks uky ds uhps gS] rhljh eafty esa nks dejs gSA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k fd oknh ds ifjokj esa 7&8 lnL; gS esgeku vk tkos rks txg ugha gSA V~;w'ku djus ds fy, txg ugha gSA oknh dk iq= fe= ds ;gkWa tk dj i<+kbZ djrk gSA oknh ds nkekn vkus ij cSBus dk LFkku ugha gSA izfroknh oknxzLr ifjlj esa ugha jgrk gS og vius xkWao yw.kkokl esa jgrk gSA 17- blds fojks/k esa ih0MCY;w0&1 rqylhjke ds ftjg esa ;s dFku jgs gSa fd muds e/; edku ekfyd o fdjk;snkj dk gh laca/k ugha gS vkSj edku dk cspku djuk xyr crk;k gSA izfroknh dk jk'kudkMZ yw.kkokl dk gksuk] iRuh dk LFkkbZ yw.kkokl esa jguk] nsohflag eaMksj eaMh esa gS o izfroknh mlds lkFk jguk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl izdkj mls ry eafty dh t:jr ugha gS tks fd oknh ds c;ku vuqlkj rkykcUn gSA fo}ku odhy oknh ds bu rdksZa ls Hkh ge lger gS fd fdjk;snkj dks vius HkwLokeh dks ;g funsZ'k nsus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS fd og vius Lo;a ds edku esa lgwfy;r o lqj{kk fdl izdkj ls djsA viuh vko';drk dk HkwLokeh Lo;a lcls vPNk fu.kkZ;d ekuk x;k gSA bl gsrq oknh dh vksj ls U;kf;d fofu'p; 1999 ,0lh0MCY;w0 3944 o 1999 ,l0lh0 MCY;w0 2666A fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ;g ekurs gq, fd oknh us viuh fdlh iq=h] nkekn ;k fdlh V~;w'kudrkZ fo|kFkhZ dks izLrqr ugha fd;k gS vkSj izfroknhx.k ds xokgksa dh bl lk{; dks ekuk gS fd oknh ds ikl dksbZ fo|kFkhZ V~;w'ku gsrq ugha vkrk vkSj oknh ds ikl miyC/k dCtklqn BkWo mlds o mlds ifjokj ds jgokl gsrq ifjiw.kZ gSA ek= bl vk/kkj ij ;g rudh oknh ds fo:) izfroknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k gSa tks i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds foijhr gSA fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl vkSj drbZ /;ku ugha fn;k gS fd ,d HkwLokeh dks viuh lqfo/kk vuqlkj jgus dk vf/kdkj gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; vuqlkj mldh nks iqf=;kWa gS ftu nksuksa dk fookg gks pqdk gS vkSj Lohd`r rF; gS fd 'kknh'kqnk iq=h vius ekrk firk ls feyus vius ifjokj lfgr vkrh jgrh gS vkSj tc Hkh iq=h vius ekrk firk ds ikl vk;sxh rks muds jgus o Bgjus dh O;oLFkk gksuk vko';d gSA blh izdkj oknh dk ,d i= tks 'kknh'kqnk gS tks vHkh ckgj ukSdjh dj jgk gS og Hkh vius ekrk firk ls feyus vkrk jguk LoHkkfod gS rks mls Hkh viuh iRuh ds lkFk jgus gsrq dejs dh vko';drk gSA oknh ds ikl dCts esa ek= nks dejs crk, x, gS tcfd ekStwnk fLFkfr esa Lo;a oknh] mldh iRuh o ,d v/;;ujr iq= gS bl izdkj oknh ds ikl mlls feyus tqyus vkus tkus okyksa ds fy, dksbZ dejk ugha gSA nks iq=h;kWa ,oa ,d iq= feyus vk, rks muds Bgjus dh dksbZ O;oLFkk ugha gSA oknh fjVk;j v/;kid gS ftldk ;g dFku jgk gS fd og fo|kFkhZ;ksa dks V~;w'ku dj i<+kuk pkgrk gS fdUrq txg dh O;oLFkk u gksus ls og V~;w'ku ugha dj ik jgk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa iq= o iq=h;ksa dks vFkok V~;w'kudrkZ fo|kFkhZ dks ijhf{kr djokus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha jg tkrh gS ,oa oknh ,oa mlds xokg }kjk izLrqr lk{; ij vfo'okl fd, tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA vr% rudh la[;k ds fu.kZ; dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa bl rudh dks oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA** 4. While admitting the present second appeal on 04.02.2002, a coordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court:- "(i) Whether the learned courts below were in error in not framing any issue on the specific plea of defendant about the sale and execution of rent note being a sham transaction? (ii) Whether the learned lower appellate court has gone wrong in not going into the above plea of the defendant, in the present suit merely on the ground in the opinion of the learned lower appellate court, the present being merely a suit for eviction, the defendant if wants to plead the document to be sham, he should have filed a suit for declaration for this purpose? (iii) Whether in view of the fact that all the three documents i.e. the sale deed, the rent note and the agreement Ex.D/1 having been simultaneously executed, and on the fact of contents and tenor of the language of rent note Ex.1-A, the learned courts below were in error in coming to the conclusion about existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 5. No one appears for the plaintiff-respondent-landlord. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant-tenant. 7. The settled legal position about bona fide need of the landlord by following various case laws is that the landlord himself is the best Judge to decide his need and it is not for the tenant or the court concerned to dictate terms in this regard or substitute its own opinion. 8. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the eviction is sought for bona fide requirement of landlord, the relevant date on which the said need has to be adjudged is the date of filing the suit and subsequent events taking place during the period of litigation like engaging in other activity or business for which premises in question is required do not upset such bona fide need unless such subsequent events are of such a nature & dimension as to completely eclipse such need and make it lose significance altogether and the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying the landlord relief when litigation at last reaches the final stage. 9. 9. In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353 , the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement observed as under:- "The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dicate to the landlord how and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The High Court was rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thought that because of her age she needed to be looked after. That was a lookout of the appellant and not of the High Court. The gratuitous advice given by the High Court was uncalled for. There is nothing to show that she had any kind of right whatever to stay in the house of the family friend. On the other hand, she was there merely by sufferance. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. The High Court was in error in laying down that the test is availability of alternative accommodation and not the legal right to such occupation in adjudging the bona fides of the claim of the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. In considering the availability of alternative accommodation, the Court has to consider not merely whether such accommodation is available but also whether the landlord has a legal right to such accommodation. The appellant had established her bona fide personal requirement of the demised premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and her claim could not be disallowed merely on the ground that she was staying as a guest with a family friend by force of circumstances." 10. More over, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in a recent decision of two Judges bench in Satyawati Sharam v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 287 , which has been later on reaffirmed by three Judges bench decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Super Max International Private Ltd. & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 772 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly noticed that even the trend of Apex Court has shifted from pro-tenant from 1950s to 1990s to pro-landlord from 1990s onwards. v. Super Max International Private Ltd. & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 772 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly noticed that even the trend of Apex Court has shifted from pro-tenant from 1950s to 1990s to pro-landlord from 1990s onwards. The relevant extracts from the judgments in case of Satyawati Sharma (supra) & Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. are quoted below for ready reference:- "12. There has been a definite shift in the court's approach while interpreting the rent control legislations. An analysis of the judgments of 1950s to early 1990s would indicate that in majority of cases the courts heavily leaned in favour of an interpretation which would benefit the tenant. In these cases the Court consistently held that the paramount object of every rent control legislation is to provide safeguard for tenants against exploitation by landlords who seek to take undue advantage of the pressing need for accommodation of a large number of people looking for a house on rent for residence or business in the background of acute scarcity thereof. However, a different trend is clearly discernible in the later judgments." 11. The relevant para 71 of the judgment of Apex Court in Super Max International (P) Ltd. (supra) is quoted below for ready reference: "71. We reaffirm the views expressed in Satyawati Sharma and emphasise the need for a more balanced and objective approach to the relationship between the landlord and tenant. This is not to say that the Court should lean in favour of the landlord but merely that there is no longer any room for the assumption that all tenants, as a class, are in dire circumstances and in desperate need of the Court's protection under all circumstances. (The case of the present appellant who is in occupation of an area of 9000 sq. ft. in a building, situate at Fort, Mumbai on a rental of Rs. 5236.58/-, plus water charges at the rate of Rs. 515.35/- per month more than amply highlights the point)" 12. This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima, SBCSA No. 132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011 also emphasised that landlord was the best judge of his needs in the following terms:- "5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. 5236.58/-, plus water charges at the rate of Rs. 515.35/- per month more than amply highlights the point)" 12. This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima, SBCSA No. 132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011 also emphasised that landlord was the best judge of his needs in the following terms:- "5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. S.N. Pungalia strongly opposed these submissions and urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the finding of facts returned by the courts below are based on cogent and relevant evidence and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as the bona fide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial court and as per the catenae of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should satisfy his bona fide need for his business place and from the facts found by the courts below it was clear that the very source of livelihood of plaintiffs was the STD PCO Booth, which is presently run under the staircase and they need bigger premises for carrying out this business". 13. In the case of Denzil Najrath v. LR's of Balwant Singh & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217 this Court has held under: "Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and evidence recorded by the learned trial court, this Court is satisfied that the findings of the fact about the bona fide need of the landlord recorded by the learned trial court are not perverse in any manner. They are based on cogent reasons and evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is required to be made in the present first appeal of the defendant-tenant. The owner-plaintiff, Swarn Singh has clearly stated in paras 7 and 8 of his affidavit that the available house with the plaintiff's family was very small of three rooms and for a family of two married brothers and three married sisters and parents of them, the said accommodation was very short of the requirement and, therefore, they needed the suit house for their own residential purposes. Nothing in the cross-examination was even asked from the said deponent about the relationship and number of family members and, therefore, the averments made in the affidavit was sufficient proof unshaken in the cross-examination of the said deponent, namely, Swarn Singh. It is well settled that findings about the bona fide need of the landlord are findings of fact and unless they can be said to be perverse or without any foundation, the same cannot be interfered with by the appellate court; and even though this is first appeal as the trial Court was that of learned Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur and requirement of substantial question of law may not be there as such as is required for second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., still this Court is satisfied that decree under appeal deserves no interference and the present appeal filed by the defendant-tenant has no merit." 14. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present second appeal of the defendant-tenant is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the defendant-tenant is dismissed, while answering the substantial question of law framed above in favour of the plaintiff-landlord and against the defendant-tenant. 16. In the circumstances, it is directed that the defendant-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question to the respondent-landlord on or before 31.01.2017 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month (Rupees Two Thousand only) commencing from the month of February, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff-landlord also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of One Year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff-landlord within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff-landlord within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The defendant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The defendant-tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff-landlord within a period of One Year from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff-landlord shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.