1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4340/2010. Prakash Chandra Nahar and another. vs. Subodh Kumar. Date : 3.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sanjay Nahar, for the petitioners. Mr.Suresh Srimali, for the respondent. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order of eviction dated 8.8.2005 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Case No.45/2003 and dismissal of their appeal by order dated 10.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent landlord failed to prove the attornment and, therefore, he could not have maintained the petition for eviction of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the respondent did not produce any relevant document so as to prove his possession over the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner also tried to assail the other findings of the courts below. I considered the submissions of learned 2 counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as the impugned orders. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no documentary evidence was produced and that fact has not been considered by two courts below. Two courts below considered the documentary evidence i.e. pleadings in the earlier round of litigation wherein the petitioners specifically did not deny the ownership of the property vesting in the respondent even after reading that he is tenant in the premises and the landlord was the person from whom the respondent is claiming that the respondent purchased the property. Learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the pleadings in the earlier round wherein it was alleged that the petitioner paid the excess amount to the landlord and he is entitled to recover the same from the present respondent. All these facts were considered by the two courts below. In a petition for eviction, it is not necessary to decide the title as such but the Tribunal proceeded to draw inference on the basis of facts and circumstances that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and non-applicant. Such concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed by re- appreciating the evidence. So far as the other pleas are concerned, they 3 are based on appreciation of evidence and are pure questions of facts. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders impugned and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that one year's time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises in question. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that at the most, time may be granted upto 31.12.2010. I considered this prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners. Looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners be granted time upto 30.4.2011 to vacate the premises in question. Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the petitioners furnish a written undertaking before the Rent Tribunal within a period of one month from today that they shall hand over the vacant possession to the respondent/landlord by or before 30.4.2011 and shall not part with the possession or sublet the premises in question during this period and shall pay all the arrears of rent and decreetal amount, if due, within a period of two 4 months from today and shall also deposit the rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month of their tenancy, in the bank account of the respondent/landlord, particulars of which be supplied to the petitioners, the decree under challenge shall not be executed till 1.5.2011. In case of non-compliance of this order or default in payment of rent mentioned above, the respondent will be free to execute the order forthwith without obtaining any order from this Court. With the aforesaid concession, this writ petition is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya