- (1.) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No.9532 of 2010 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dt. 6.4.2011 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition.
(2.) Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. It can be gathered from the order of the learned Single Judge impugned herein. Since the order of the Single Judge is a short one, and hence it is reproduced inform in full. "The application preferred by the respondent-landlord for eviction of rented premises came to be accepted by the Rent Tribunal, Pali vide judgment dated 21.1.2009; accordingly a certificate in this regard was issued. The certificate and judgment dated 21.1.2009 came to be affirmed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Pali vide judgment dated 20.7.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunals below failed to appreciate that the bonafide necessity depicted by the respondentlandlord was not at all existing. It is asserted that during pendency of this petition for writ, one more shop has become available to the respondent-landlord and if any bonafide necessity yet exists, then that can very well be satisfied by using the vacant premises now available. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The Tribunals below have examined the issue relating to bonafide necessity thoroughly and reached at a definite conclusion in this regard. The availability of a shop during the pendency of this petition even as per the site-map placed on record is not adjacent to the premises where the respondent-landlord is presently operating his business. Besides that, it is for the landlord to decide which premises if more suitable for him to satisfy his need. While exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am not at all inclined to interfere with the factual findings given by the Tribunals below. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that atleast 1 years time be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises to enable to settle his business at some other appropriate place. The time claimed for, as per the learned counsel for the respondents is quite excessive. Having considered the submissions in this regard, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to retain the premises in question with him upto 31 st December, 2011, subject to submission of an undertaking before the trial court within a period of fifteen days from today in the following terms : (1)- He shall handover complete vacant possession of the rented premises in question to the respondents on or before 31.12.2011. (2)- He shall not part with the possession of the premises or any portion of it to anybody else before handing over the vacant premises to the respondent. (3)- He shall make the payment of rent to the respondents month by month and that is before 7 th day of every month. (4)- The arrears of rent and also the mense profit as determined and awarded shall be paid to the respondents within a period of one month from today. In the event, the petitioner do not submit an undertaking as aforesaid or violate any condition thereof, then the respondents would be entitled to get the order of eviction/decree executed."
(3.) Mere perusal of the aforequoted order of the Single Judge would go to show that appellant, who is a tenant has suffered eviction decree from the original court, then upheld by the Tribunal as an appellate Court and lastly by the Writ Court by impugned order. So it is a concurrent decree of eviction suffered by the appellant from all Courts. Though it was upheld yet the Writ Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction while dismissing the writ petition granted time to the appellant till December 2011 to vacate the tenanted accommodation.;