(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.492/2008 Mst. Raffo & Ors. Vs Jabunissa & Ors. Date: 16/02/2009 ** HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE ** Mr. Praveen Jain, for the appellants. Mr. O.P. Sharma, for the respondents. -- This civil second appeal under Section 100, CPC is preferred by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2008 passed by District Judge, Tonk in Civil Regular Appeal No.32/2007, by which the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants and upheld the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Tonk in Civil Suit No. 66/2001, by which the suit for eviction from the house in dispute and recovery of rent filed by the plaintiff- respondent has been decreed. Learned Counsel for the appellants at this stage submitted that the appellants do not wish to press this second appeal on merits and would be satisfied if some reasonable time i.e, three years time may be allowed for vacating the disputed house. Although, the request of the appellants has not been opposed by learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff but the time as prayed by the appellant-defendant is opposed. It is contended that one year time is sufficient to vacate the (2) house in question and handover the possession of the same to plaintiff-respondent. It is also contended that the rent deposited by the appellants-defendants under Section 19-A of Rent Control Act, the plaintiffs may be permitted to withdraw the same. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent also undertakes that his client would not execute the decree up to one year. Learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants undertakes that the appellants will handover the vacant possession of the house in question within one year from the date of passing of this judgment to plaintiffs-respondents. In the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, it is hereby ordered that the decree shall not be executed by the respondents-plaintiffs against the defendants- appellants up to one year from the date of passing of this judgment on the condition that the appellants submit an undertaking that they would handover vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed house on or before completion of one year to the respondents-decree-holder. The said undertaking be submitted before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The appellants would further ensure at the time of submission of undertaking that all the arrears of rent have been paid/deposited and would further submit proof of payment/deposit of rent. (3) It is also made clear that in case of appellants fail to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the time allowed, it would be open for the respondents-decree holder to execute the decree forthwith. In case the appellants failed to make payment arrear of rent, the appellants have to interest @ 9% on the arrear of rent. The undertaking shall also contain stipulation that the appellants shall not sublet, assign or part with the possession of the house in dispute during the said period, which is for one year, and would not create any third party interest therein. So far as rent deposited by the appellants under Section 19-A with Court concerned, the plaintiffs-respondents are at liberty to withdraw the same. The trial Court is directed to release the amount of rent, so deposited by the appellants-defendants under Section 19-A of the Rent Control Act to the plaintiff-respondent and same shall be adjusted in arrear of rent. In the result, the present second appeal stands disposed of subject to the above conditions. In view of the aforesaid, the stay application does not survive and the same is also stands rejected. (K.S. RATHORE), J. DJ/- 67