Ramesh Chandra vs Milap Chand and Others

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J—This second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree Dt. 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Deedwana in Civil Regular Appeal No. 60/1999 (38/1992, 128/1992) "Ramesh Chandra v. Milap Chand & Ors." who dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree Dt. 1.9.1992 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in Civil Original Suit No. 177/1987 "Milap Chandra & Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra" by which, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate had decreed the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs-Milap Chand & Ors seeking possession of property in question, which is a house, situated at Deedwana, District Nagaur belonging to the Padha Mataji Temple Trust, Deedwana. The appellant-defendant Ramesh Chandra S/o Mool Chand Brahmin (Sevak), since deceased now represented by his legal representatives namely, Mohan Lal Sevak and two others, has filed the present second appeal-being aggrieved by the concurrent decree of dispossession granted by the two Courts below in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs in respect of the house, a residential quarter, which belongs to the Diety, Padha Mataji Temple Trust and the plaintiffs Milap Chand S/o Banshi Lal Mathur, Shanker Lal S/o Mool Chand Bagaria-Agarwal and Chhagan Lal S/o Dhan Raj Sevak, claimed to be the Trustees of the said Temple and are interested persons in the Trust property filed the present Suit (No. 177/1987) for possession against the appellant-defendant Ramesh Chandra, who was allowed to live in the house in question by permissive possession given by the Trustees of the said Temple. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 10.9.1992 and the first appeal [No. 50/1999 (38/1992. 128/1992)] filed by the defendant-appellant Ramesh Chandra came to be dismissed on 21.9.2006 by the appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Deedwana.

The relevant facts of the case and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on issue No. 1 are quoted herein below for ready reference:--

The relevant portion of the discussion made by the learned trial Court on the issue relating to applicability of Sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 which contains a bar against jurisdiction of the civil Court is also quoted below for ready reference:--

The objection regarding suit falling within the ambit and scope of Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dealt with by the learned first appellate Court, while deciding issue No. 8 that Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The relevant portion of the discussion made by the learned first appellate Court is reproduced herein below for ready reference:--

The learned counsel Mr. Arpit Bhoot appearing for the appellants-defendants-Ramesh Chandra submitted that a substantial question of law arises in the present case requiring consideration by this Court in the present second appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure about the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court to deal with the present suit, as the Trust in question was not a registered Public Trust under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and, therefore, the present suit was not maintainable and since the present suit was not fulfilling the requirements of Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, the said substantial question of law was required to be decided in favour of the appellants-defendants and the suit for possession could not be decreed. He also submitted that the Trust in question was bound to be registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act and, therefore, in view of the admitted position that the trust was not so registered, the question of maintainability of the suit goes to the root of the matter and in view of Sec. 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if these questions are not raised before the Courts below, he sought to raise before this Court at this stage. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Shehla Burney and Others Vs. Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others, (2011) 5 JT 137 : (2011) 164 PLR 127 : (2011) 3 RCR(Civil) 345 : (2011) 4 SCALE 838 : (2011) 6 SCC 529 : (2011) AIRSCW 2694 : (2011) 3 Supreme 401 , Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana and Others, (2013) 5 ABR 793 : (2013) 7 AD 604 : AIR 2013 SC 3060 : (2013) 3 CPJ 22 : (2013) LabIC 3412 : (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 942 : (2013) 9 SCALE 103 : (2013) 10 SCC 136 : (2013) 2 SCC(L&S) 841 : (2013) 3 SCT 702 : (2014) 1 SLJ 57 and Municipal Committee, Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, (2010) 11 JT 615 : (2010) 11 SCALE 69 : (2010) 13 SCC 216 .

Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Parihar appearing for the respondent-plaintiff-decree-holder submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the present case and the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below about the original defendant Ramesh Chandra and now his Legal Representatives having no right to continue in the possession of the house in question belonging to the Padha Mataji Temple Trust and the suit in question was rightly tried and decided by the learned trial Court while dealing with the issues regarding jurisdiction of the Court and the issues now sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants at this stage have already been dealt with the Courts below and the same issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents based on sound reason and legal position. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bishwanath and Another Vs. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1044 : (1967) 69 PLR 761 : (1967) 2 SCR 618 3 . The relevant portion of the discussion made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court with regard to suit under Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in para 7 of the judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:--

"7. It is settled law that to invoke Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 3. conditions have to be satisfied, namely : (i) the trust is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature : (ii) there was a breach of trust or a direction of Court is necessary in the administration of such a trust, and (iii) the relief claimed is one or other of the reliefs enumerated therein. If any of the 3 condition is not satisfied, the suit falls outside the scope of the said section. A suit by an idol for a declaration of its title to property and for possession of the same from the defendant, who is in possession thereof under a void alienation, is not one of the reliefs found in Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That a suit for declaration that a property belongs to a trust is held to fall outside the scope of Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Privy Council in Abdur Rahim v. Abu Mahomed Barkat Ali, (55 Ind App 96 : AIR 1928 PC 16) , and by this Court in Mahant Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji Vs. Patel Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai and Others, AIR 1952 SC 143 : (1952) 1 SCR 513 , on the ground that a relief for declaration is not one of the reliefs enumerated in Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, So too, for the same reason a suit for a declaration that certain properties belong to a trust and for possession thereof from the alienee has also been held to be not covered by the provisions of Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure: See Mukaremdas Mannudas and Others Vs. Chhagan Kisan Bhawasar and Others, AIR 1959 Bom 491 : (1957) 59 BOMLR 1144 : (1957) ILR (Bom) 809 . Other decisions have reached the same result on a different ground namely, that such a suit is one for the enforcement of a private right. It was held that a suit by an idol as a juristic person against persons who interfered unlawfully with the property of the idol was a suit for enforcement of its private right and was, therefore, not a suit to which Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied: See ( Shibji Maharaj Birajman Vs. Darshan Lal and Others and Ram Lal and Others, (1923) ILR (All) 215 : and Madhavrao Anandrao Raste Vs. Shri Omkareshvar Ghat, (1929) 31 BOMLR 192 . The present suit is filed by the idol for possession of its property from the person who is in illegal possession thereof and, therefore, it is a suit by the idol to enforce its private right. The suit also is for a declaration of the plaintiffs title and for possession thereof and is, therefore, not a suit for one of the reliefs mentioned in Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In either view, this is a suit outside the purview of Sec. 92 of the said Code and, therefore, the said section is not a bar to its maintainability."

The learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Parihar for the plaintiffs-respondents also contended that since no specific pleadings were made by the defendant regarding maintainability of the suit before the learned trial Court, therefore, the objection now sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the defendants on the anvil of Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding registration of the Public Trust, could not be permitted to be raised by the defendants at this stage now in the present second appeal and emphasizing for proper and categorical pleadings in the suit and the written statement of the defendant before the learned trial Court, such type of objection cannot be raised. To support the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Parihar relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and Another, AIR 2009 SC 1103 : (2009) 1 CLR 362 : (2008) 13 JT 255 : (2008) 15 SCALE 158 : (2008) 17 SCC 491 : (2009) AIRSCW 287 . The relevant portion of the discussion made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 9 and 10 of its judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:--

"9. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the Court for its consideration. This Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is realty at issue between the parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must take.

The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the Courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the Court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the Court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a Court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the Court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the Court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief"

The learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Parihar appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents also submitted that the objections and issues were even sought to be raised by the defendants by filing an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned trial Court below have failed even up to this Court as mentioned in the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, while dismissing the first appeal filed by the defendant. The learned counsel Mr. Arpit Bhoot appearing for the appellants-defendants does not dispute this position.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the records of the case including the judgments cited by the learned counsels at bar.

This Court is of the clear and considered opinion that the questions sought to be raised by the learned counsel Mr. Arpit Bhoot appearing for the appellants-defendants even though might be questions of law arising from the orders of the Courts below but they are neither the substantial questions of law nor they can be said to be such questions going to the root of the matter in the present second appeal filed under Sec. 100 read with Sec. 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure at this stage.

Firstly, this Court is convinced that the present suit filed before the learned trial Court by the Trustees of the Padha Mataji Temple Trust on behalf of the idol or the persons interested in the trust property seeking possession of the house in question illegally in possession of the defendant-Ramesh Chandra was not a suit falling within the ambit and scope of Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is quoted herein below for ready reference:--

"92. Public charities.--(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the [leave of the Court,] may institute a suit, whether contentious or not in the principal Civil Court of original Jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situated to obtain a decree--

(a) removing any trustee:

(b) appointing a new trustee:

(c) vesting any property in a trustee:

[(ce) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled and inquiries:

(d) directing accounts and inquiries:

(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust.

(f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged:

(g) settling a scheme: or

(h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

2................................................................................................

3................................................................................................"

From the bare perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is very much clear that Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of charitable or religious nature or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust and then, the locus has been vested with the Advocate-General or with two or more persons having an interest but they are required to obtain the leave of the Court for instituting such suit. It is further clear from the bare reading of the aforesaid Section, that the suit filed, either by the Advocate-General or two or more persons, can be for specific purposes only as mentioned in Clause (1) of the said Sec. 92. It is noticed that Clause (cc) inserted by the Act No. 66 of 1956, a suit can be filed for directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has been ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court, dealing with a case, namely Bishwanath and Another Vs. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1044 : (1967) 69 PLR 761 : (1967) 2 SCR 618 , while giving reference to various other rulings given by the Privy Council and other judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, has clearly laid down that suit for possession filed by the idol through persons interested in such property is a suit to enforce his private rights and it does no fall within the ambit and scope of Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This case law settles the legal position beyond any pale of doubt and squarely applies to the facts of the present case and, therefore, there is little force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants Mr. Arpit Bhoot that suit having not been filed after duly complying with the requirements of Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be rejected. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly is rejected

Coming to the next contention about the bar of Sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. 1959 to be applied against the present suit, the answer has to be again in negative and against the defendants. The reason is simple that the Trust in question is not a registered Public Trust under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. There is no mandatory requirement that every trust is required to be compulsorily registered under the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. 1959 requiring that such temple, trusts and the properties of deity, being dealt with by a trust are mandatory required to the registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act. 1959. The definition of the ''Public Trust" as defined in Clause (11) of Sec. 2, the definition of "Temple" as defined in Clause (16) of Sec. 2 read with Chapter V containing Secs. 16 to 18 about registration of such Public Trust do not envisage any such compulsory registration of all the Public Trusts. Besides this, the requirement of trusts having minimum value of properties has to be satisfied and only such trusts can apply for registration under Secs. 16 and 17 of the said Act of 1959. The relevant definitions, provisions relating to registration of a Public Trust and Sec. 29 about bar against civil suits by unregistered Public Trust are reproduced herein below for ready reference:--

"Section 2--Definitions:

"Public trust" means an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment or institution and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both:

"Religious endowment?" or "endowment" means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of a religious institution or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of the religious institution as well as the idols, if any installed therein and any public charity associated with a festival or observance of a religious character, whether connected with a religious institution or not, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the trustee or hereditary trustee or working trustee of such institution or to any service-holder or other employee thereof:

"Temple" means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by a community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship"

"Trustee" means a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons the trust property is vested and includes a manager:

"Working trustee" means any person who, for the time being, either alone or in association with some other person or persons administers the trust property of any public trust and includes the manager of a public trust as well as--

(a) in the case of a math, the head of such math, and

(b) in the case of a public trust having its principal office or principal place of business outside the State of Rajasthan the person in charge of the management of the property and administration of the public trust in the State.

Section 17 : Registration of public trusts.--

(1) Within three months from the date of the application of this section to a public trust or from the date on which a public trust is created whichever is later, the working trustee thereof shall apply to a Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for the registration of such public trust

(2) The Assistant Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period prescribed by sub-sec, (1) for the making of an application for registration by not more than two years.

(3) Each such application shall be accompanied by such fee if any, not exceeding five rupees, and to be utilized for such purpose, as may be prescribed.

(4) The application shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall contain the following particulars, namely:--

(i) the origin (so for as known), nature and object of the public trust and the designation by which the public trust is or shall be known;

(ii) the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate;

(iii) the name and addresses of the working trustee and the manager;

(iv) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee;

(v) the list of the movable and immovable trust property and such description and particulars as may be sufficient for the identification thereof:

(vi) the approximate value of the movable and immovable property;

(vii) the gross average annual income derived from movable and immovable property and from other source, if any, based on the actual gross annual income during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has elapsed since the creation of the trust, whichever period shorter, and in the case of a newly created public trust the estimated gross annual income from all such sources;

(viii) the amount of the average annual expenditure in connection with such public trust estimated on the expenditure incurred within the period to which the particulars under clause (vii) relate, and in the case of a newly created public trust, the estimated annual expenditure in connection with such public trust;

(x) the address to which and communication to the working trustee or manager in connection with the public trust may be sent:

(x) such other particulars as may be prescribed,

Provided that the rules made may provide that in the case of any or all public trusts it shall be necessary to give the particulars of the trust property of such value and kind as may be specified therein.

(5) Every application made under sub-sec. (1) shall be signed and verified in accordance with the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) for signing and verifying plaints. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the instrument of trust (if such instrument has been executed and is in existence) and, where the trust property includes immovable property entered in a record of rights, a copy of the relevant entries relating to such property in such record of rights shall also be enclosed.

(6) No Assistant Commissioner shall proceed with any application for the registration of a public trust in respect of which an application for registration has been filed previously before any other Assistant Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first shall decide which Assistant Commissioner shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust

(7) An appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first, give under sub-sec. (6) may be filed within sixty days before the Commissioner and, subject to the decision on such appeal, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner under sub-sec. (6) shall be final,

Section 18 - Inquiry for Registration.--(1) On receipt of an application under Sec 17 or upon an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion, the Assistant Commissioner shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining:

(i) whether a trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust:

(ii) whether any property is the property'' of such trust;

(iii) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject matter of the trust is situate within his Jurisdiction:

(iv) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager of such trust:

(v) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust;

(vi) the origin, nature and object of such trust;

(vii) the amount of gross average annual income and expenditure of such trust: and

(viii) The correctness or otherwise of any other particulars furnished under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 17."

(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall give in the prescribed-manner public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under sub-sec. (1) and invite all persons having interest in the public trust under inquiry to prefer within sixty days objections, if any, in respect of such trust.

Section 19 : Finding of Assistant Commissioner.

On completion of the inquiry provided for under Sec. 18, the Assistant Commissioner shall record his findings with the reasons therefor as to the matters mentioned in the said section.

Section 20 : Appeal.--Any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or in any property found to be trust property aggrieved by a finding of the Assistant Commissioner under Sec. 19 may, within two months from the date of its publication on the notice board of the Assistant Commissioner, file an appeal before the Commissioner to have such finding set aside or modified.

Section 29 : Bar against suits by unregistered trust:

(1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which is required to be registered under the Act but has not been so registered shall be heard or decided in any Court.

(2) The provisions of sub-sec. (1) shall apply to a claim of set off or other proceedings to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust."

None of the provisions quoted above spells about any such compulsory registration of all the trusts and it is only on the application filed by the Public Trusts falling within the said definitions and fulfilling the requirements of minimum value of trust property and minimum annual income, which upon their application subject of fulfillment of the requirement so stipulated there they can be registered after due inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the said Act of 1959 and thereafter, they shall be regulated by the relevant provisions of the Act of 1959. The trial Court in the present case, while deciding the issue No. 3 has returned a categoric finding that the trust in question in the present case was not required to be registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 as the property being owned by it was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 30,000/- and, therefore, the objection regarding registration of the trust in question as raised by the learned counsel Mr. Arpit Bhoot for the appellants-defendants is neither tenable nor legally sustainable much less, requiring any adjudication by framing of a substantial question of law at this stage which contention even though was not raised before the learned Courts below, therefore, the objection fails and is hereby rejected.

As far as the findings of facts recorded by both the learned Courts below are concerned particularly, the finding, that the defendant Ramesh Chandra had no right to retain the possession of the house in question, they are pure findings of fact and, therefore, this Court cannot upset the same in jurisdiction under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Court {Sic Procedure). It is noticed that the original defendant Ramesh Chandra, who was put in the permissive possession in the house in question by the original Pujari Bhanwar Lal Darji, who himself was a Pujari of the said temple with the clear understanding that within a month or two, he will hand over the vacant possession of the house in question, the said Ramesh Chandra was allowed only temporarily to reside in the said house in question on his request that since he had been ousted from his own house by his mother and in these circumstances, he had no place to live. On such a request, the sad Ramesh Chandra was given only a permissive possession of the house in question but having failed to hand over the vacant possession of the house in question to the trustees or to the persons having interest in the property of the trust, the present suit has been filed on behalf of the idol to enforce its private rights, which suit has been concurrently decreed by the learned two Courts below. In this view of the matter, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below based on sound reasoning and relevant evidence and the same are binding on this Court and in the absence of any perversity in such findings of facts by learned two Courts below, no substantial question of law can be said to be arising for consideration in the present second appeal of the defendant.

Accordingly and on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present second appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant Ramesh Chandra is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, as no substantial question of law arises out of the judgments of the learned Courts below for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties and the learned Trial Court concerned forthwith. In the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appellants-defendants shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the house in question to the respondents-plaintiffs within a period of three months from today i.e. on or before 31.5.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 2000/- per month [Rupees Two Thousand only] commencing from March, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondents/plaintiffs also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of three months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellants/defendants shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit as fixed by the Courts below and pay the same to the respondent/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear simple interest @9% per annum. The appellants/defendants shall also not sub let assign or part with the possession of the suit house 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 and this decree will bind any such third party also. The appellants-defendants 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 respondents-plaintiffs within a period of three months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Courts below and parties concerned forthwith.