JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant-landlord against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.1998 passed by the learned appellate court of Additional District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Appeal Decree No. 56/93 - Ashok Kumar v. Dhula Ram, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1993 passed by the learned trial court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No. 20/93 - Shri Ashok Kumar v. Shri Dhula Ram, dismissing the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-appellant in respect of the suit premises, a shop in question situated at Sirohi. 2. 2. The relevant extract of the findings of the learned trial court in the order dated 29.09.1993 is as under:- 8- fook|d la[;k ,d& bl fook|d dks izekf.kr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij Fkk fd vk;k oknh dks fookfnr ifjlj dh diM+s dk O;kikj djus gsrq ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkoiwoZd vko';drk gSA oknh us vius vfHkopu dh iqf"V djrs gq, vius l'kiFk dFku esa dgk gS fd mldks diM+s dh nqdku ds fy, ;g nqdku pkfg,A og nqdku djsxkA mls diM+s ds /kU/ks dk vuqHko gSA blds foijhr izfroknh Jh /kwykjke izålkå 1 us viuh lk{; esa dgk gS fd oknh enzkl esa /khj/kkj dk /kU/kk djrk gSA oknh dh iRuh o cPps enzkl esa gh jgrs gSA oknh ds cPps enzkl esa gh i<+rs gSA oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd oknh dh lk{; ls mldh vko';drk ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkoiwoZd fl) gS dkQh yEcs le; ls fookfnr ifjlj izfroknh ds ikl fdjk;snkj ij gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh dks ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkoukiwoZd vko';drk dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, fookfnr ifjlj ls izfroknh dh csn[kyh dh fMdzh nh tkosA vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus U;kf;d fofu'p; Jherh csxk csxx vkSj vU; fo:) vCnqy vgen [kku ds mRrjkf/kdkjh ,oa vU;] ,åvkbZåvkjå 1979 mPpre U;k;ky; i`"B 272 izLrqr fd;kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk rdZ gS fd oknh us ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftlds vk/kkj ij fookfnr ifjlj ds lEcU/k esa mldh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~HkkoukiwoZd vko';drk izekf.kr gks ldsA oknh us ml lk{kh dks Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA ftlds ogka og cEcbZ esa 10 lky ls ukSdjh djuk crk;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh fookfnr ifjlj ds laca/k esa ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~HkkoukiwoZd vko';drk izekf.kr ugha dj ik;k gSA oknh us vius dFku esa ek= fookfnr ifjlj esa diM+s dh nqdku djuk crk;k gS ijUrq mlus vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa ;g ugha crk;k gS fd orZeku esa og dgkWa jgrk gS rFkk D;k O;kikj djrk gS ;k D;k ukSdjh djrk gSA bl egRoiw.kZ rF; ij mlus dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k gS tcfd vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g vo'; dgk gS fd og cEcbZ esa 10 o"kZ ls tx:i ouspan th ds ;gka diM+s dh ukSdjh djrk gS tcfd izfroknh Jh /kwykjke izålkå 1 us oknh dk enzkl esa /khj/kkj dk /kU/kk crk;k gSA oknh us egRoiw.kZ lk{kh tx:i ouspan th dks Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gS tks ;g crk ldrk Fkk fd okLro esa oknh mlds ;gka diM+s dh nqdku ij ukSdjh djrk gS ijUrq oknh us egRoiwZ.k lk{; dks izLrqr ugha dj mldks jksddj j[kk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa fookfnr ifjlj ds laca/k esa mldh vko';drk ln~HkkoukiwoZd ugha ekuh tk ldrhA oknh dks ;g fl) djuk Fkk fd mldh vko';drk ;qfDr;qDr rFkk ln~Hkkoukiw.kZ gS ijUrq ek= ;g dgus ls fd og diM+s dk O;kikj djsxk mldh vko';drk izekf.kr ugha ekuh tk ldrhA oknh us ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gS fd og fdl&fdl vof/k esa fljksgh esa vkdj jgk gS rFkk O;kikj djus dk iz;kl fd;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkh mldh vko';drk fl) ugha gksrh gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p; ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1979 i`"B 272 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us tks vfHker O;Dr fd;k gS ml ekeys esa fookfnr ifjlj dh Hkw&Lokeh dks vius ifjokj dh vk; c<+kus ds fy, vko';drk Fkh ftlesa mlus ;g izekf.kr dj fn;k Fkk fd mldh vk; xqtkjk djus ds fy, vi;kZIr gSA ijUrq fo|eku izdj.k esa ,slk dksbZ rF; oknh izekf.kr ugha dj ik;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa rF;ksa dh fHkUurk ds dkj.k mDr U;kf;d fofu'p; llEeku fo|eku izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrk gSA bl izdj.k esa Hkw&Lokeh ds okn dk gsrq vizR;{k ,oa lansgkLin izrhr gksrk gS bl dkj.k mldh vko';drk ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkoiw.kZ ugha ekuh tk ldrhA mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij oknh ;g fl) ugha dj ik;k gS fd fookfnr ifjlj dh mldks ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkoukiw.kZ vko';drk gSA vr% ;g fook|d oknh ds fo:) izfroknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k okn oknh fo:) izfroknh ckcr~ okni= ds in la[;k ,d esa of.kZr ifjlj ls csn[kyh dk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA okn dk O;; i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA U;k;ky; esa fuf{kIr fdjk;k oknh izkIr dj ldsxkA rn~uqlkj fMdzh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA ,lMh@& ¼/keZnRr 'kekZ½ eqflQ ,oa eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke oxZ] fljksgh ¼jktå½** 3. The relevant extract of the findings of the learned appellate court in the order dated 04.07.1998 is as under:- 7- oknh&vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd Jh vf'oudqekj xjfM;k dk dguk gS fd oknh v'kksd dqekj ds c;ku ;s ;g iwjh rjg lkfcr gS fd mldks fookfnr nqdku dh ;qfDr;qDr vkSj ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gS rFkk fljksgh esa mlds ikl dksbZ vU; nqdku ugha gSA mudk dguk gS fd orZeku esa oknh ukSdjh djrk gS vkSj vc og fljksgh esa Lo;a dk diM+s dk dkjksckj djuk pkgrk gS ftlds fy, mlds ikl i;kZIr /ku Hkh gSA mudk dguk gS fd izfroknh iPphl o"kZ ls Hkh vf/kd le; ls mDr nqdku esa fdjk;snkj gS vkSj bruk yEck le; mlds fy, oSdfYid nqdku dh O;oLFkk djus ds fy, i;kZIr gSA mudk dguk gS fd bl fLFkfr esa bDohVh oknh ds i{k esa gSA Jh ejfM;k dk dguk gS fd nqdku [kkyh ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa izfroknh ds eqdkcys oknh dks vf/kd vlqfo/kk gksxh D;ksafd izfroknh /kksch dk /ka/kk vius ?kj lfgr fdlh Hkh vU; LFkku ij dj ldrk gSA mudk dguk gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us oknh dh ;qfDr;qDr vkSj ln~Hkkoh vko';drk rFkk rqyukRed vf/kd dfBukbZ dks lkfcr ugha ekudj dkuwuh vkSj rF;kRed Hkwy dh gS vkSj blfy, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA Jh ejfM;k us vius leFkZu esa fu.kZ; ,åvkbZåvkjå 1979 ,lålhå 272 is'k fd;k gSA vycRrk Jh ejfM;k us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds rudh la[;k nks ds fu.kZ; ls lgefr izdV dh gS vkSj ;g ekuk gS fd izfroknh us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa dksbZ pwd ugha dh gSA 8- izfroknh & izR;FkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd Jh /kuirjkt fla/kh us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dk leFkZu djrs gq, dgk gS fd oknh ds vlefFkZr c;ku ds vk/kkj ij mldh ;qfDr;qDr vkSj ln~Hkkoh vko';drk dks lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA mudk dguk gS fd oknh us cEcbZ esa ftl izfr"Bku esa ukSdjh dj diM+s ds /kU/ks dk vuqHko izkIr fd;k gS ml izfr"Bku ds ekfyd vFkok eSustj dk c;ku ugha djok;k gS blfy, ;g lkfcr ekuuk dfBu gS fd oknh dks diM+s ds /kU/ks dk vuqHko gSA mudk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd nqdku [kkyh gks tkus dh fLFkfr esa izfroknh dks vf/kd vlqfo/kk gksxh D;ksafd izfroknh vius /kU/ks ls oafpr gks tkosxkA mudk dguk gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; rF;ksa o dkuwu ds vuq:i gksus ls iqf"V fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 9- rudh la[;k ,d dks lkfcr djus ds fy, oknh us dsoy Lo;a dk c;ku djk;k gSA oknh v'kksddqekj ihåMCY;wå 1 vius c;ku esa dgrk gS fd eq>s diM+s dh nqdku ds fy, ;g nqdku pkfg,A eSa nqdku d:axkA eq>s diM+s ds /kU/ks dk vuqHko gSA og ftjg esa dgrk gS fd eSa nl lky ls cEcbZ esa gwWaA oknh us okni= ds in la[;k pkj esa dgk gS fd diM+s ds /kU/ks esa yxkus ds fy, mlds ikl i;kZIr jde gSA izfroknh us vius tokcnkos esa oknh ds bl dFku dk [k.Mu ugha fd;k gSA izfroknh /kwykjke MhåMCY;wå 1 us vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd oknh enzkl esa /khjnkj dk /kU/kk djrk gSA fdUrq izfroknh us ,slk dksbZ dFku vius tokcnkok esa ugha fd;k vkSj u oknh ls bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ ftjg dh gSA vr% /khjnkj ds /ka/ks dh ckr dks lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA tks O;fDr ukSdjh djrk gS mldh Lo;a dh nqdku esa dkjksckj djus dh bPNk mldh ln~Hkkoh vkSj ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk gS vkSj dsoy ek= bPNk ugha gSA bl laca/k esa fu.kZ; ,åvkbZåvkjå 1979 ,lålhå 272 voyksduh; gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; esa dgk gS fd oknh us ,slh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd dh og fdl vof/k esa fljksgh esa vkdj jgk gS rFkk O;kikj djus dk iz;kl fd;k gSA esjs er esa oknh }kjk bl rjg dh lk{; is'k fd, tkus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha FkhA tx:i ouspUn dks is'k ugha djus ls Hkh dksbZ foijhr fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk D;ksafd oknh ls bl laca/k esa dksbZ ftjg ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj blfy, oknh ds bl laca/k esa fd, x, dFku dks vLohdkj fd, tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us rudh la[;k ,d ds laca/k esa i=koyh ij fo|eku lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu ugha fd;k gSA esjs er esa oknh v'kksd dqekj ds c;ku ls ;g iwjh rjg lkfcr gS fd mldks fookfnr nqdku dh diM+s dk /kU/kk djus ds fy, ;qfDr;qDr vkSj ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gSA vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds rudh la[;k ,d ds fu.kZ; dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj rudh la[;k ,d dk fu.kZ; oknh ds i{k esa vkSj izfroknh ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA 10- rudh la[;k rhu dks lkfcr djus dk mRrjnkf;Ro Hkh oknh ij gSA oknh v'kksddqekj ihåMCY;wå 1 vius c;ku esa ;g dgha ugha crkrk fd nqdku [kkyh u gksus dh lwjr esa izfroknh dh vis{kk mldks vf/kd dfBukbZ fdl izdkj gksxhA izfroknh /kwykjke MhåMCY;wå 1 vius c;ku esa dgrk gS fd og /kksch dk /ka/kk vius vkoklh; edku esa ugha dj ldrk vkSj fookfnr nqdku [kkyh djk;h xbZ rks mlds cPps Hkw[ks ej tkosaxs tcfd fookfnr nqdku [kkyh ugha gksus ij oknh dks dksbZ uqdlku ugha D;ksafd og ijns'k esa jgdj O;kikj djrk gSA oknh v'kksd dqekj ihåMCY;wå 1 vius eq[; c;ku esa dgk gS fd izfroknh /kksch dk /ka/kk vius ?kj esa Hkh dj ldrk gS fdUrq mlus ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izfroknh ds ?kj dk dksbZ edku ugha gSA izfroknh ds xokg eksgEen guhQ MhåMCY;wå 2 us dgk gS fd izfroknh ds edku esa dsoy ,d dejk gS ftl ij irjs Mkys gq, gS rFkk o"kkZ esa bl edku ds vkl&ikl dhpM+ gks tkrk gS guhQ MhåMCY;wå 2 ;g Hkh dgrk gS fd vxj izfroknh ls nqdku [kkyh djok;h xbZ rks mldk ifjokj Hkw[kk ej tkosxkA esjs er esa i=koyh ij fo|eku mDr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd nqdku [kkyh u gksus dh fLFkfr esa izfroknh dh vis{kk oknh dks vf/kd dfBukbZ gksxhA i=koyh ij fo|eku lk{; ls ;g Hkh izdV gS fd vkaf'kd nqdku ds ba[kyk; dh fMdzh ugha nh tk ldrhA tkfgj gS fd rudh la[;k rhu ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; dkuwu vkSj rF;ksa ds vuq:i gS blfy, mlesa gLr{ksi djus dks dksbZ vk/kkj vFkok vkSfpR; ugha gSA 11- pwafd rudh uEcj rhu ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh tk pqdh gS blfy, oknh dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vkns'k 12- ifj.kkeLo:i oknh vihykFkhZ dh ;g vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA i{kdkjku bl vihy dk [kpkZ viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA ,lMh@& xkSjh 'kadj ljkZQ ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k] fljksgh** 4. A coordinate Bench of this Court, while admitting the present second appeal on 09.02.1999, framed the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court:- "1. Whether the mandatory provisions contained under sub-section (2) of Section 14 relating to comparative hardship is to be examined in the light of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 wherein it is clearly provided that if a decree for eviction of any premises has been passed by the Court against a tenant on any of the grounds specified in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 and landlord fails to utilise the premises to the use or purposes for which such eviction shall have been decreed within two months of obtaining possession, then on the application of the vacated tenant he has to be placed in possession of the premises? 2. Whether the finding on the question of comparative hardship recorded by learned first appellate court is not binding in second appeal because it has ignored the statement made by Dhoola Ram (DW 1) defendant-tenant?" 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 8. 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 dictate 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 bonafides 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." 9. 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 legislation. 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." 10. 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)" 11. 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. 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". 12. 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. 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." 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present second appeal of the plaintiff-appellant-landlord deserves to be allowed because the need and comparative hardship as on the date of filing of suit has to be seen and not the changed circumstances over the long period of litigation. The Courts are not allowed to substitute their own decision in this regard as the landlord if the best judge to adjudge his requirements. Both the courts below have erred in substituting their own opinion about the need of the landlord, which they were not entitled to do. The appeal of the landlord is accordingly allowed and the substantial question of law framed above deserves to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant-landlord and the same is accordingly so answered. 14. In the circumstances, it is directed that the respondent-defendant-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question to the appellant-plaintiff on or before 31.12.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 2,000/- per month (Rupees Two Thousand only) commencing from the month of January, 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 appellant/plaintiff 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 respondent/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the appellant/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The respondent/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 defendants-tenants 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 appellant-plaintiff 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 appellant-plaintiff 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.