Badar Ali vs A.D.J., Court No.4, Rampur and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13. 04. 2012 passed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur allowing respondentslandlords application for release of premise in question and appellate order dated 31. 07. 2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Rampur dismissing petitioner''s Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2012 confirming trial court''s order.

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.

Sri Syed Fahim Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for respondentlandlord stated that the landlord has also suffered sufficiently and though in principle did not object the request of petitioner for granting reasonable time but requested this Court that in ascertaining this time the Court may take into consideration the hardship and difficulties already suffered by respondent in commencing, conducting and pursuing the proceedings in question.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and also with the consent of learned counsel for the parties I find it appropriate that petitioner may be allowed six months'' time to vacate the premise in question. Sri Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate appearing for petitioner also stated that petitioner undertake to vacate the premise within aforesaid period.

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 landlordrespondent within six months from today, execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed. It is also made clear that the petitionertenant shall continue to pay rent of premise in question to respondentlandlord monthtomonth. 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 petitionertenant 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 petitionertenant alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is dismissed.