JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. 1. The instant Civil First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 1 CPC has been filed by the defendant-appellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th September, 2016 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu in civil suit No.81/2012 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the disputed premises has been decreed on the ground of expiry of lease period and termination of tenancy by serving a valid legal notice by the landlord. 2. Briefly, stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff respondent instituted a civil suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the premises situated in town Bissau. It was averred in the plaint that the defendant bank on 17th April, 2001 took the premises of the plaintiff on rent for running a branch of the bank through a written rent deed. Initially the property was let out for a period of five years which was extendable for further five years on enhanced rent. As per the case of the plaintiff-respondent the initial rent deed was executed between the parties on 27th April, 2001 therefore, the extended tenure of the rent deed was up to 27th April, 2011. On 17th January, 2011 the plaintiff respondent, through his advocate served a legal notice to the Branch Manager asking him to vacate the premises on completion of the lease period. A corrigendum to the legal notice was also sent as there was some error in the date. As per the averments of the plaintiff, the defendants neither sent any reply to the letters nor vacated the premises even on expiry of lease period. In addition to this, the plaintiff averred that the disputed premise is required for the personal need of his son Naveen Mahansariya. 3. The defendant appellant bank contested the suit by filing written statement and the learned trial court framed as many as seven issues. 4. From the side of plaintiff, in addition to the documentary evidence, three witness, namely; PW.1 Ram Kishore Mahansariya, PW.2 Jugal Kishore Mahansariya and PW.3 Naveen Mahansariya were examined. In defence, the defendant appellant examined DW.1 Babu Lal Boyal and exhibited two documents. 5. The learned trial court after hearing both the sides decided issue Nos. 4. From the side of plaintiff, in addition to the documentary evidence, three witness, namely; PW.1 Ram Kishore Mahansariya, PW.2 Jugal Kishore Mahansariya and PW.3 Naveen Mahansariya were examined. In defence, the defendant appellant examined DW.1 Babu Lal Boyal and exhibited two documents. 5. The learned trial court after hearing both the sides decided issue Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 completely and issue no.2 partially in favour of the plaintiff respondent and thus vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29th June, 2016 decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent for eviction and directed the defendant appellant to vacate the premises within two months. 6. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below has not properly considered this aspect of the case that the appellant was not in unlawful possession of the property in dispute and that the property was not required for the personal necessity of the son of the plaintiff as after letting out the premises to the appellant bank the plaintiff had sold the adjoining shop. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial court on the issues framed are bad in law. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiff respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that the findings recorded by the learned court below on the issues framed are based on proper appreciation of evidence and no interference is required to be called for in the same. 9. Learned counsel has further submitted that vide advertisement published in the rajasthan patrika dated 17th November, 2016, the appellant bank has already invited tenders for suitable accommodation. Therefore, the plaintiff respondent would have no objection if appropriate time is allowed to the appellant bank to get suitable accommodation to run its Branch and to handover vacant possession of the disputed premises to him. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant bank has not disputed the fact that the appellant bank had invited tenders for the accommodation but at this stage he cannot say whether the appellant bank has been able to get suitable accommodation to run its branch. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment and the material available on record. 12. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment and the material available on record. 12. On perusal of the impugned judgment it would reveal that the findings of the learned court below on issues framed in the suit are based on proper appreciation of evidence produced by the parties and the learned trial court on issue No.1 has concluded that DW.1 Babu Lal Boyal, Branch Manager has admitted the fact of execution of the rent deed which was valid up to 27.4.2011 and the same was not got extended thereafter. He has also admitted the fact that after 27.4.2011 no rent was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, after 27.4.2011 the defendant has no legal or valid right to possess the disputed premise. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff respondent has been able to prove his case and the learned trial court has committed no error or illegality in deciding the issues framed in the case in favour of the plaintiff respondent. 13. However, in view of the concession given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant, it is ordered that the defendant-appellants shall be entitled to continue in possession of the suit premises up to 25th September, 2017 but not beyond that, subject to condition that :- (1) The defendant appellant would hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff-respondent on or before 25th September, 2017; (2) the defendant-appellant shall deposit arrears of mesne profit due towards it up to 31st December, 2016 as per the existing rate of rent in bank account of the plaintiff respondent within a period of one month from today and thereafter, from the month of January, 2017 the defendant appellant shall continue to deposit the mesne profit at the same rate in the bank account of the respondent by 15th of each succeeding month; (3) the defendant-appellant shall not alienate or otherwise create third party right or hand over possession of the tenanted premises in question to any other person or institution; (4) If the defendant-appellant fails to deposit the mesne profit consecutively for four months, the plaintiff respondent shall be at liberty to execute the decree without any further reference to the Court. (5) Further, the defendant-appellant shall submit an undertaking on oath incorporating the aforesaid conditions before the Additional District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. In case the defendant-appellant fails to submit the undertaking as aforesaid within four weeks from today and/or commits breach of any of the conditions of this order, the plaintiff-respondent shall be entitled to execute the decree forthwith and obtain possession of the suit premises in accordance with law.