- (1.) THE appellants-defendants, who are the legal representatives of orignal defendant, Khan Mohammed, have filed the present second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No.33/2007- Inayat Ali & Anr. Vs. LR's of Khan Mohammed, whereby the learned lower appellate court below while dismissing the appeal of the appellant-defendant, affirmed the judgment and eviction decree dated 06.08.2007 of learned trial court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), City North, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No.428/1997- Inayat Ali & Anr. Vs. Khan Mohammed.
(2.) THE plaintiffs-respondents, filed a suit before the learned trial court for recovery of arrears of rent, bonafide need and ejectment of the suit shop, situated at Ward No.38, Udaipur, alleging therein that the suit shop was purchased by the plaintiffs from one Balwant Singh through a registered sale-deed dated 03.01.1995. THE suit shop was let out by the predecessor in title, viz. Mr. Balwant Singh to the defendant-tenant, Khan Mohammed. THE rent was fixed at Rs.250/- per month, which the defendant-tenant failed to pay to the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs served a notice through their advocate dated 01.10.1997 terminating the tenancy. THE plaintiffs also claimed that the shop is required for staring their own business. Upon receipt of summons of the suit, the appellant- defendant filed written statement while denying the reasonable and bonafide need of the suit shop. The learned trial court after hearing the parties vide its judgment and decree dated 06.08.2007 decreed the plaintiffs' suit for eviction. Against the eviction decree, the appellants-defendants preferred first appeal before the learned first appellate court, which appeal also came to be dismissed by the learned lower appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 05.01.2009. The appellants-defendants thereafter preferred this second appeal before this Court challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below on 04.05.2009. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, Dr. Rakesh Sinha, submits that since the possession of the suit shop has been handed over to the respondents-plaintiffs-landlord and he, therefore, does not want to press this second appeal on merits. Mr. Rajesh Shah, learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiff also does not dispute the factum of handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit shop in question.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the present second appeal filed by the appellants-defendants against the concurrent judgments and eviction decrees of the courts below is dismissed as not pressed. A copy of the judgment be sent to parties concerned and the courts below forthwith.;