S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 1 of 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :::
JUDGMENT
::: S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.59/1999 Gokul Das S/o Sh. Tahel Ram Sindhi & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das S/o Aadumal Sindhi Date of Judgment :::: Wednesday 13/01/2016. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. D.R. Bhandari, for the appellants/defendants/tenant. Mr. Manish Shshodia, for the respondent/plaintiff/landlord. -- 1. The appellants/defendants/tenants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, 1908, impugning the judgment and decree dated 17.02.1999 passed by learned first appellate court of learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Udaipur, in Civil Appeal No.10/1998 (Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das) whereby the learned first appellate court dismissed the first appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and eviction decree dated 28.05.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Udaipur City (South), Udaipur, in Suit No.277/1993- Gurumuk Das Vs. Gokul Das & Anr., whereby the learned trial S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 2 of 18 court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/landlord for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, situated at House No.30, Kamaliya Badi, Udaipur, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of landlord and default in payment of rent. Both the courts below have concurrently granted eviction decree on the ground of default in payment of rent after determination of provisional rent under Section 13 (3) of the Rent Control Act, 1950 and the defence of the defendants/tenant having been struck out by the learned trial court under Section 13 (5) of the Rent Control Act, 1950.
2. The suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff/appellant was decreed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.1997 with the following findings: - “तनक न.4 इस तनक क स ब त करन क भ र व द पर ह। व द द र इस स ध म अपन द र पसतत ककय गए व द पत म इस आशय क अभभवचन रह ह कक व दगसत पररसर क स ध म प*व+ स पततव द गण क ववरद एक द व पश ककय गय थ , ज र ज3न म ह न स ददन क 25.3.92 क तनसत ररत हआ और उसम पततव द गण न व दगसत पगरसर क ककर य 40/- म हव र स अद ककय जन सव3क र ककय । व द क अपन व द पत म आग यह भ3 अभभवचन रह कक उक र ज3न म क पश त भ3 पततव द गण दर व दगसत पररसर क ककर य ददन क 25.3.92 स 24.6.93 तक क 15 म ह क ककर य ज 40/- म हव र क दहस स 600/- ह त ह, अद नह ककय और इस पक र पततव द न व दगसत पररसर क ककर य अद यग3 म ववधधक चक क ह। S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 3 of 18 अपन व द पत क समथ+न म व द सवय गरमखद स प3 ड 1 क रप म पर क=त ह कर अपन यन म तय ह कक व दगसत मक न क ककर य 40/- म हव र स म च+-92 तक क व द क अद ककय । द व ककय त 16 म ह क ककर य क य थ । इस3 पक र क कथन व द क अनय गव ह म*रल धर प3 ड 2 क भ3 अपन य न@ म रह ह। यदवप पततव द गण द र पसतत ककय गए जव दव म उनक इस आशय क अभभवचन रह ह कक व द क पततव द न.1 व 2 द र पव * + म 800/-खच+ ख त व द क ददय थ, जजसक क ई रस3द व द न नह द । उनक आग अपन जव द व म यह कहन भ3 रह ह कक इसक वज*द भ3 पततव द न.2 द र ददन क 13.7.93 क जररय एम ओ 600/- म ह अपल-92 स जल ई-93 तक क ककर य व द क भज जजस व द न लन स इक र कर ददय । वत+म न पकरण म उनक द र ददन क 20.7.93 क व दगसत पररसर क ककर य ककय गय । जस कक सवय पततव द गण क उक आशय क अभभवचन रह ह कक उनक द र म ह अपल-92 स जल ई-93 तक क ककर य ददन क 13.7.93 क जररय एम ओ व द क भज गय त इसस भ3 यह त सपष ह त ह ह कक द व करन क प*व+ 6 म ह क य उसक अधधक क व दगसत पररसर क ककर य त पततव द गण द र व द क अद नह ककय गय । इसक अल व इस पकरण म ददन क 8.4.94 क अतररम रप स ददन क 23.3.92 स 25.3.93 तक क ककर य तनध +ररत ककय गय इसम भ3 इस आशय क आदभशक ह कक पततव द गण द र ककर य जम कर न क क ई रस3द पश नह क ह। इस पक र यह नय य लय क सम= यह तथय प*णर + प स सब त हत ह कक पततव द गण द र व दगसत पररसर क द व करन स प*व+ 6 म ह क य अधधक क अवधध क ककर य न त टणडर ककय गय ह और न ह अद ककय ह और इस पक र पततव द गण न व दगसत पररसर क ककर य अद करन म ववधधक च*क क ह। S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 4 of 18 इस पकरण म ददन क 8.4.94 क अतररम रप स ददन क 23.3.92 स 25.3.94 तक क 40/- म हव र क दर स व दगसत पररसर क ककर य तनध +ररत ककय ज कर मय बय ज र.1020/- पततव द गण क आदभशक दद. 8.4.94 क अनस र अनदर एक म ह म व द क अद करन थ एव अपल-94 स दय आग म3 म ह क ककर य भ3 व द क तनयम नस र अद करत रहन थ , लककन पततव द गण द र अतररम रप स ककर य तनध +रण क द उक र भश व आग म3 म ह क दय ककर य अद नह करन पर व द द र एक प . पत अतग+त ध र 13 (5) रनट कनJ ल एकट ददन क 5.10.95 पसतत ककय , जजस पर उभय प=@ क सनकर ददन क 20.8.96 क व द क उक प . पत अतग+त ध र 13 (5) रनट कनJ ल एकट सव3क र ककय ज कर पततव द गण क इस स ध म डडफनस सJ ईक आप क गई और इस आदभशक म नय य लय न यह म न कक पततव द गण द र अतररम रप स ददन क 8.4.94 क ककर य तनध +रण क द व दगसत पररसर क ककर य पन: नय य लय क आदश नस र वद क अद नह कर ववधधक चक क ह। इसभलय पततव द गण रनट कनJ ल एकट क ध र 13 (6) क तहत पथम डडफ लटर क भ3 ल भ प न क अधधक र नह रहत ह और इस पक र यह तनक तदनस र हक व द ववरद पततव द गण तय क ज त3 ह। अनत ष चकक * तनक न.4 हक व द ववरद पततव द गण तय क गई ह और जजसम यह स ब त हआ ह कक पततव द गण द र अतररम रप स ददन क 8.4.94 क ककर य तनध +रण क द व दगसत पररसर क ककर य पन: नय य लय क आदश नस र वद क अद नह ककय ह इसभलय पततव द गण रनट कनJ ल एकट क ध र 13 (6) क तहत पथम वयततकम3 क ल भ प न क अधधक र नह रह ह और व ककर य अद यग3 करन म ददत3य वयततकम3 ह और ऐस S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 5 of 18 म व द क यह व द ववरद पततव द गण त ख ल कर न व दगसत पररसर एव चढ ककर य प प करन, डडक ककय ज न य गय ह। आदश फलत: व द क यह व द ववरद पततव द गण त ख ल कर न मक न एव चढ ककर य तनमन नस र मय खच + डडक ककय ज त ह :- 1- पततव द गण व दगसत ककर यशद पररसर वरण+त मद न.2 व द पत क तनण+य क त र ख स अनदर द म ह ख ल कर उसक कबज व द क भसपद+ कर। 2- व द , पततव द गण स व दगसत पररसर क कय ककर य म ह ददन क 25.3.92 स 25.3.94 तक 40/- म हव र क दहस स र.1020/- प प करग । 3- व द पततव द गण स ददन क 25.3.94 स त डडक तक ज ककर य जम कर य गय ह, क भ3 वह तनयम नस र प प करन क अधधक र ह। यदद नह करय ह त 40/- प. म ह क दर स प प करग । 4- व द , पततव द गण स व दगसत मक न क उपय ग/उपभ ग हत त डडक स त खल ह न व दगसत मक न, 40/- म हव र क दहस स हज +न भ3 प प करग । डडक तदनस र न ई ज व। Sd/- (महनX भसह) भसववल नय य ध3श (कतनष खड) उदयपर शहर (दक=ण) उदयपर”.
3. The first appeal filed by the defendants/appellants was, dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.1999 with the following findings: - “जस कक पतयथ[ क ववद न अधधवक न अपन तक+ म त य ह यह द न@ उदरण पसतत पकरण पर ल ग* नह ह त ह, नय य धचत तक+ पत3त ह त ह, कय@कक अगर S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 6 of 18 अध3नसथ नय य लय द र ववलम क =मय ककय ज न क प थ+न पत ख ररज ककय ज त त उसक अप3ल म ऐस ववशवषत ककय ज सकत थ कक ववलम =मय य गय ह, य नह । अध3नसथ नय य लय न व द पद सखय च र क तनण+य म यह ववशवषत ककय ह कक पततव द क जव द व क सवय क अनस र कक उसक द र म ह अपल-92 स जल ई 93 तक क ककर य ददन क 13.7.93 क जररय मन3 आड+र भज गय थ , यह उसक ककर य अद यग3 म पथम चक * म न3 ह, उसक पश म अतररम तनध +ररत ककर य क र भश क अद यग3 भ3 दर स क गई ह। मर र य म उपर क द न@ उदरण@ क तथय पसतत पकरण पर ल ग* नह ह न क क रण तथ पततव द द र समय पर ककर य अद यग3 नह करन क क रण ववद न अध3नसथ नय य लय न ज व द पद सखय च र क तनण+य ककय ह, वह पवष य गय ह तथ ववधध सममत ह, अत: पवष क ज त3 ह। अनत ष- व द व दगसत पररसर क ककर य अद यग3 म द र क वयततकम क आध र पर व दगसत पररसर क ररक करव न क अधधक र ह। आदश अप3ल थ[गण क अप3ल पतयथ[ क ववरद ख र ज क ज त3 ह, तथ ववद न अध3नसथ नय य लय भसववल नय य ध3श (क. ख.) उदयपर शहर (दक=ण) क तनण+य व डडक ददन क 28.5.97 क पवष क ज त3 ह। खच + प=क र अपन अपन वहन कर। अध3नसथ नय य लय क पत वल तनण+य क पतत क स थ अववलम ल^ट ई ज व। Sd/- (कल श चनX ज श3) अपर जजल नय य ध3य सखय -2 उदयपर (र ज.)" S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 7 of 18 4. While admitting the present second appeal, a coordinate bench of this Court has framed following substantial questions of law for consideration on 15.03.1999: -
“1. Whether a suit for eviction filed by plaintiff landlord against the tenant defendant on the ground of clause (a) of sub-section (1) lf Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), can be ipso facto decreed because the defence of the tenant defendant has been struck off within the meaning of sub-section (5) of the aforesaid Section or even if the defence of the tenant defendants is struck off within the meaning of sub-section (5) of Section 13, even then the plaintiff landlord is required to establish that the tenant has neither paid, nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months at the time of institution of the suit?.
2. Whether the expression “paid nor tendered”. used in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act shall be deemed to be defined under sub-section (4) of Section 19A read with sub-Section (3) of the aforesaid Section of the Act, 1950, which clearly provides that for the purpose of clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 13, a tenant shall be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of any rent due from him, if he has paid, remitted or deposited the amount of rent by any of the mode as specified in sub-section (3) of Section 19A of the said Act?.
3. Whether on the basis of finding recorded by S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 8 of 18 the learned trial court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court a decree of eviction against tenant defendant appellant in case on hand on the ground of default in payment of rent as envisaged under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 , is not sustainable in eye of law in as much as sending of rent by Money Order by tenant defendant appellant tantamounts tendering the rent due?.
4. Whether sending rent by Money Order within six months from the date of institution of suit is valid tender of rent due within the meaning of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1950?.”.
5. Mr. D.R. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants relying upon the judgments in the case of Vishandas Vs. Savitri Devi reported in 1988 RLW (1) 365 and in the case of Laldchand Vs. Santram, reported in 1979 RLW119has urged that the defendants/tenants had regularly paid the rent and the delay of six days in payment of rent could be condoned in view of above cited judgments; and even after the defence struck out under Section 13 (5) of the Act, an opportunity to lead evidence was not given by the learned trial court to the defendant, and therefore, the eviction decree passed by the courts below, deserve to be set aside and the questions of law framed above, deserves to be answered in favour of appellants/defendants. S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 9 of 18 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/landlord, Mr. Manish Shishodia, submitted that on account of default in payment of rent by the defendant even after determination of provisional rent by the learned trial court, the defence was struck off by the learned trial court on 20.8.1996, after giving an opportunity to the defendants of hearing in this regard. Thereafter also, the defendants/tenant failed to pay rent in respect of suit premises. He also relied on Supreme Court judgment in the case of Nasiruddin vs. Sita Ram – 2003 reported in DNJ SC180 in which it has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the Rent Control proceedings and the trial court is not empowered to condone the delay even of single day in depositing of the rent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin (supra) held as under:- “41.Thus, on analysis of the aforesaid two decisions we find that wherever the special Act provides for extension of time or condonation of default, the Court possesses the power therefor, but where the statute does not provide either for extension of time or to condone the default in depositing the rent within the stipulated period, the Court does not have the power to do so.
42. In that view of the matter it must be held that in absence of such provisions in the present Act the court did not have the power to either extend the period to deposit the rent or to condone the default in depositing S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 10 of 18 the rent.
43. Coming to the second question, we are of the view that Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable where there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant u/s.13(4) of the Act.
44. It is true that Rajasthan Act does not expressly exclude the application of Limitation Act. But Sec.5 in its terms is not applicable to wherever there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant.
45. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads under:- “5.Extention of prescribed period in certain cases.-Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of O.XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”. 46. On perusal of the said Section it is evident that the question of application of Sec.5 would arise where any appeal or any application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the court hat he had sufficient cause for not making the appeal or application within such period. Section 13(4) provides that in a suit for eviction o the ground set forth in Cl.(a) of sub-sec.(1) the tenant shall on the first date of hearing or on or before such date, the Court may on the application fixed in this behalf or within such time the tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord in Court as determined under sub-sec.(3) S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 11 of 18 from the date of such determination or within such further time not exceeding three months as may be extended by the Court. Thus, sub-section(4) itself provides for limitation of a specified period within which the deposit has to be made, which cannot be exceeding three months as extended by this Court.
47. The matter may be examined from another angle. The deposit by the tenant within 15 days is not an application within the meaning of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the deposit does not require any application, therefore, the provisions of Sec.5 cannot be extended where the default takes place in complying with an order under sub-sec.(4) of Sec.13 of the Act.
48. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed having regard to Section 3 thereof. For filing an application after the expiry of the period prescribed under the Limitation Act or any other special statute a cause of action must arise. Compliance of an order passed by a Court of Law in terms of a statutory provision does not give rise to a cause of action. Failure to comply with an order passed by a Court of Law instant consequences are provided for under the statute. The court can condone the default only when the statute confers such a power on the Court and not otherwise. In that view of the matter we have no other option but to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application in the instant case. ”.
7. This Court is satisfied that the controversy at hand is no longer res-integra and is covered by the judgment of this Court in the S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 12 of 18 case of LR's of Shrichand Vs. Shanti Devi (SBCSA No.193/2005, decided on 23.04.2015), in which this Court has held as infra: -
“7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the reasons given in the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below, this Court is satisfied that the present second appeal of the appellants/defendants/ tenant deserves to be dismissed and the substantial questions of law framed above, deserve to be answered in favour of plaintiff/respondent/landlord and the eviction decree cannot be upset in the present second appeal. There was no direction to re-determine the provisional rent under Section 13 (3) of the Act as contended. The continuous default culminated in the defence being struck out under Section 13 (5) of the Act of 1950. The appellant/defendant despite opportunities granted to him failed to disprove the default and failed to lead any cogent evidence and he himself has admitted before trial court below that there was delay in payment rent for the period September, 1986 to April, 1987, however, the same can be condoned.
8. This submission is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin Vs. Sitaram Agarwal, 2003 DNJ (SC) 180. ...... (Already quoted above in preceding para) xxx Thus, viewed from any angle, the present second appeal filed by the appellants/defendants/tenants is liable to be dismissed and the eviction decree deserves S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 13 of 18 to be upheld. The questions of law framed above are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants/tenants. The present second appeal of the defendants/tenants is, accordingly, dismissed.”. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the reasons given in the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below, this Court is satisfied that the present second appeal of the appellants/defendants/tenant deserves to be dismissed and the substantial questions of law framed above, deserve to be answered in favour of plaintiff/respondent/landlord and the eviction decree cannot be upset in the present second appeal. The continuous default culminated in the defence being struck out under Section 13 (5) of the Act of 1950 and thereafter also the defendants continued.
9. In the case of Bulaki Dass S/o Asha Ram Purohit Vs. Ram Swaroop S/o late Dwarka Dass Rathi, reported in 2009 (2) WLC298 following the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shiv Dutt Jadia Vs. Ganga Devi reported in (2002) 3 SCC189 this Court granted eviction decree upon the second default committed by the tenant in payment of monthly rent during the pendency of the appeal. This Court in the aforesaid case of Bulaki Dass (supra) has held as under:-
“18. Having heard the learned counsel at length and having gone through the record of the case and the judgments of two Courts below and the judgments cited S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 14 of 18 at Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below cannot be said to have erred in any manner in passing the eviction decree against the appellant-tenant on the ground of second default. The deposit in the Court of learned Munsif Magistrate without any procedure known to law at all under Section 19A of the Act or otherwise is of no consequence and cannot enure to the benefit of the defendant-tenant. The said deposit, if any, is no deposit and has been rightly treated as not a valid tender of rent by the defendant-tenant by the Courts below. Admittedly, the first deposit itself for the month of June, 1980 was made by the tenant on 17.7.1980 after the suit proceedings terminated on 11.7.1980 with dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate court. Therefore, on 14.7.1980, no proceedings were pending in the Court and, therefore, deposit of rent for the month of June, 1980 in the learned trial Court was not at all a valid tender. Similarly deposits for the month of July, 1980 and August, 1980 were also without any consequence. The present and second suit came to be filed by the plaintiff on 4.2.1981. Though it was required of the learned trial Court to determine the arrears of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act, since it was a suit on the ground of second default, merely because that is not done, the defendant-tenant cannot take any advantage of that situation. After institution of the suit on 4.2.1981, any deposit under Section 19A of the Act was also not permissible as held by this Court in Swaran Devi V/s Kailash Chandra (supra). The S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 15 of 18 provisions of Section 19A of theAct are meant to be resorted to if the landlord illegally refused to accept the rent from the tenant after following the procedure under Clause (a) and (b) both, as has been laid in the case of Bajrang Lal V/s Ramdeo (supra). Nothing of this sort under Clause (b) was followed by the appellant for any of the default months upto January, 1981. The tenant in order to maintain his tenancy right is allowed to deposit the rent in the Court instead of payment of the same to the landlord only after following the mandatory procedure under Clause (a) and (b) both. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the rent at least for the month of June, 1980 to August, 1980 was tendered to the landlord at any point of time, therefore, deposit for these three months cannot be said to be a valid deposit as per provisions of Section 19A of the Act. Similarly, for the month of September, 1980 to November, 1980, the money orders sent by the defendant which were of course refused by the plaintiff landlord for these three months also, there was no deposit of the same by the tenant in the Court under Section 19A of the Act. Thus, for six months from June, 1980 to November, 1980, the second default stood committed by the tenant. The deposit under Section 19A of the Act which came to be made by the defendant – tenant on 10.2.181 for 5 months (September, 1980 to January,
198) was not in accordance with law, after institution of present suit on 4.2.1981 and as procedure both under Clause (a) and S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 16 of 18 (b) was not followed by the tenant and, therefore, the said deposit also does not wash away the second default which already stood committed by the defendant – tenant. Admittedly, the law does not permit any leniency and waiver in the case of second default and eviction decree under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act is bound to be passed on commitment of second default in payment of rent. As already discussed above, the second default for the period of six months from June, 1980 to November, 1980 stood committed by the defendant- tenant on 15th December, 1980 and the eviction decree was bound to be passed and was, therefore, rightly passed by the Courts below.
19. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant do not help the case of the appellant in any manner, and they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, whereas the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent fully support the case of the plaintiff-respondent, particularly decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra), decision of this Court in the case of Bajrang Lal (supra) and the decision of this Court in the case of Swaran Devi (supra) also support the case of the plaintiff- respondent.
20. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant and the same deserves to be dismissed and the substantial question of law quoted S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 17 of 18 above deserves to be answered against the defendant- tenant and the decree of eviction deserves to be upheld by this Court. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.”. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, which delineate the legal position prior to aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nasiruddin (supra) and Shivdutt Jadia (supra), are of little help to the defendants and therefore, the present second appeal of the defendants-tenants thus deserves dismissal while answering the substantial question of law framed above in favour of the plaintiff-landlord and against the defendant-tenant, the present second appeal of the appellants-defendants is dismissed.
11. In the circumstances, it is directed that the appellants/ defendants/appellants/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question to the respondent- landlord on or before 31.07.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month (Rupees Two Thousand only) commencing from the month of January, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent-landlord also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of Six Months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profits and pay the same to the S.B.C.S.A. No.59/1999 Gokul Das & Anr. Vs. Gurumuk Das Judgment, Wednesday, 13/01/2016 18 of 18 respondent-landlord within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The defendant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The defendants- tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondent-landlord within a period of Six Months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-landlord shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/- H-2