RADHEY SHYAM Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL JAIPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After arguing the matter at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner realising the fact that there is concurrent findings of facts, of the Rent Tribunal Jaipur, and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, against the petitioner, and that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2010 9 SCC 385, has held that challenges to concurrent findings of facts in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are liable to be rejected, except in cases of perversitywhich ground is not apparently made out, submits that as the petitioner is in occupation of the shop as the tenanted premises, he would be left with no source of income in the event the petitioner has to be evicted forthwith pursuant to orders dated 16-12-2010 and 10-4-2009. Counsel prays that the petitioner be allowed to continue in occupation of the premises in question for a period of ten months i.e. upto December 31, 2013, during which the petitioner would make arrangements for alternative premises to run his business therein.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent-landlord Ramgopal Saini, with instruction from his client agreed to the proposal of learned counsel for the petitioner, and accepts that in the event of the orders of the courts below are upheld, he would have no objection with the petitioner continuing in occupation of the premises in question only till December 31, 2013 (December thirty fist two thousand and thirteen).

(3.) In view of the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-