1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT Anil Kumar. vs. LRs. of Mohd. Haroon. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.201/2006 UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.3.2006 PASSED BY SHRI PANKAJ BHANDARI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.3, JODHPUR IN CIVIL APPEAL DECREE NO.70/2005. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 24.4.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Ashok Bhansali, for the appellant. Mr.Om Prakash Mehta, for the respondent. - - - - - BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal against the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the 2 two courts below, in the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2005 by the trial court and in the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2006 by the first appellate court by which both the courts below held that the plaintiff/ respondent proved his personal bonafide necessity for the suit shop and further the defendant has not used the suit premises for more than six months prior to filing of the suit which is a ground for eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950'). According to learned counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff himself did not appear in the witness box and, therefore, the suit should have been dismissed only on this ground. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has other accommodations still the two courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove his personal bonafide necessity for the suit shop. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given by the two courts below in two judgments. The two courts below considered the evidence of the parties including the fact that in place of the 3 plaintiff, his son gave his statement and thereafter found the evidence of the plaintiff sufficient for proof of personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff. The appellant's contention is that subsequent to the decision of the courts below, the appellant has deposited the electricity bills. That fact is absolutely irrelevant because of the simple reason that the suit for eviction of the tenant was not on the ground that the tenant has not deposited the electricity bills but that was a corroborative fact only that at the relevant time, the suit shop was not used by the tenant. That fact was a supporting evidence only. In view of the above, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal and this second appeal deserves to be dismissed. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that sufficient time may be given to the appellant to vacate the suit premises. Learned counsel for the respondent has serious objection to the grant of time to the appellant. I considered this prayer of learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant be granted 4 time upto 30.4.2008 to vacate the suit premises. Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the appellant furnishes a written undertaking before the trial court within a period of two months from today that he shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord by or before 30.4.2008 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, and shall also pay the rent upto 30.4.2008 in advance 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 1.5.2008. In case of non-compliance of the order or default in payment of amount mentioned above, the decree shall become executable forthwith. With the aforesaid concession, this appeal is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya