- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Two courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff prove the personal bonafide necessity for the suit premises. The finding of fact has not vitiated because of any lawful reason and in view of the reasons given in the judgments of two courts below, it appears that two courts below thoroughly considered the facts of the case and thereafter, recorded the finding of fact in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
(2.) In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that sufficient time may be granted to vacate the suit premises because the appellant is running his business in the suit shop since long and he will have to make alternative arrangement and wind up his business. Looking to the totality of the facts, this Court deems that the appellant be granted one year's time to vacate the suit shop.
(3.) Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the appellant furnishes a written undertaking before the trial court within a period of one month from today that he shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord by or before 30.4.2007 and shall not part with the possession or sublet the suit premises during this period and shall pay all the arrears of rent and decreetal amount, if due, within a period of two months from today before the trial court or directly to the landlord, the decree under challenge shall not be executed till 1.5.2007. The appellant shall also deposit the rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month of his tenancy in the trial court.;