CW 3132/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.3132/2008 Gopilal through L/rs Versus Keshav Vallabh & Others. Date of Order ::: 03/08/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sudesh Bansal, for petitioner (tenant) Mrs Rani Bhandari for Mr. AK Pareek, for respondent (plaintiff). At request, matter was finally heard at admission stage. Instant petition has been filed by tenant (defendant) assailing judgment dt. 13/03/07 (Ann.1) of Civil Judge, Bundi (Civ. Suit No.13/04) whereby decree was passed in favour of plaintiff directing defendant (petitioner herein) to vacate the suit premises within three months, against which Appeal (Rent)-6/2007 was preferred by tenant (defendant) but was dismissed by District Judge (Appellate Rent Tribunal) Bundi vide judgment dt.22/11/07 and six months' time was further granted to vacate suit premises. As alleged in writ petition, respondents (Plaintiff) filed a civil suit U/Ss 9(a), (d), (i) & (m-ii) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (“Rent Act”) on 03/02/2004 seeking eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, bonafide necessity, nuisance CW 3132/08 //2// & unfit for human habitation. After pleadings of parties, the Rent Tribunal framed six issues; and after recording of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal recorded the finding that defendant (tenant) failed to pay monthly rent @ Rs.100/- from 01/07/2002 therefore, plaintiff is entitled to decree of eviction; and decided all the issues against the defendant; and finally decreed the suit with the direction to the tenant to vacate suit premises and hand over peaceful vacant possession whereof to the landlord within three months and would continue to pay monthly rent determined by the Tribunal vide judgment & decree dt.13/03/07, against which petitioner preferred appeal. Rent appellate Tribunal affirmed the findings recorded by rent Tribunal and consequently dismissed the appeal on 22/11/07. Respondents entered into a caveat and on 07/08/08 on their behalf, time was sought for filing the reply and undertook not to execute the decree for a period of two weeks. On 22/07/09 both the Counsel sought time to seek instructions. Counsel for petitioner tried to convince this Court on merits that the findings impugned are perverse & inconsistent CW 3132/08 //3// to the evidence on record despite concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below and finally Counsel alternatively submits that atleast some time be granted to the petitioner (tenant) so that he may be able to find out alternative accommodation. Counsel for respondent (plaintiff) while supporting the finding recorded by Rent Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal, submits that there being concurrent finding of fact, this Court would not like to sit as appellate authority in limited scope of judicial review U/Art.226 & 227 of the Constitution; inasmuch as petitioner has failed to show any perversity in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by Rent Tribunals, which may call for interference. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. It is settled by Apex Court in a catena of decisions that High Court while exercising power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority while exercise power of of judicial review U/Art.226 & 227 of the Constitution and is only confined to correct errors of law and procedural law if results in manifest miscarriage of justice or in violation of CW 3132/08 //4// principles of natural justice; but it does not mean to adjudicate on merits on appreciation of evidence on record. Having considered material on record, this Court does not find manifest perversity in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by courts below which may call for interference in exercise of powers U/Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution. Lastly Counsel for petitioner on instructions from his client submits that time may be granted for vacating the suit premises on or before 31/03/2011 as he has no other alternative accommodation at present where he could shift. Counsel for respondent on instructions has agreed to grant time for vacation of suit premises subject to furnishing of tenant's undertaking in that regard and for regular payment of rent alongwith arrears in terms of impugned decree. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, this Court considers it appropriate to extend the time as granted vide decree of eviction impugned provided the petitioner furnishes an undertaking within four weeks from today to the satisfaction of trial Court that he shall handover vacant & peaceful possession of the rented premises on or before 31/03/2011 in CW 3132/08 //5// compliance of decree of eviction impugned along with arrears of rent and would also continue to pay monthly rent as determined vide decree impugned during intervening period, on or before 7th day of each month and in case of failure or breach of aforesaid undertaking, respondent (plaintiff) will be free to execute the decree prior thereto in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/ 3132CW08Aug03Rntime.doc