Sushil Kumar and Ors. vs Sri Johri Mall (Deceased) and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 10.03.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar in SCC Suit No. 44 of 1998 allowing respondentslandlords application for release of premises in quest/on and dated 09.10.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffar Nagar in SCC Revisions No* 15 of 2010 and 16 of 2010 dismissing petitioners'' appeals and confirming Trial Court''s order.

Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and learned counsel for the petitioners finding it difficult to assail the same, at the outset stated that petitioners may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premise in question.

Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel appearing for respondentslandlords stated that the landlords have also suffered sufficiently and though in principle did not object the request of petitioners 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 respondents 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 petitioners may be allowed six months'' time to vacate the premise in question. Sri Ashok Mehta, Advocate appearing for petitioners also stated that petitioners undertake to vacate the premise within aforesaid period.

In view of the above, it is provided that petitioners, if file an affidavit within ten days from today before the trial court containing an undertaking that they 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 petitionerstenants 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 petitionerstenants 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 petitionerstenants alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises.

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