IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.: 523 of 2009. Date of decision : 17.12.2009. Manu Raj Abrol …Appellant. Versus Des Raj …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashista, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. S.S.Panta and Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The respondent here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff filed a suit against the present appellant here-in-after referred to as the defendant seeking possession of the shop in land comprised in Khata No.19, Khatoni No.54, measuring 00-00-25 hectare situated in Mohal, Mouja and Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra. According to the plaintiff the shop was rented out to the defendant in the year 1998 at monthly rent of Rs.1200/- per month. Thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs.1400/- per month in the month of March, 2000 and in April, 2002 the rent was fixed at Rs.1500/- per month. The tenancy of the plaintiff was terminated on 30th April, 2005 but the plaintiff did not vacate the premises. Hence the suit. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 30th September, 2006. It would be pertinent to 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 mention that the defendant did not challenge the rate of rent. The defendant filed an appeal which was dismissed on 26th August, 2009. Hence the present appeal. After hearing the parties, I find that all the questions involved in the appeal are pure questions of fact and no question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In fact, on the last date of hearing while issuing notice in the appeal I had observed that notice to the respondent was confined only to the extent that some reasonable time may be given to the appellant to vacate the premises. Shri Adarsh Kumar Vashista, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that appellant is running a shop and he may be given a reasonable time to vacate the premises so that he can make alternate arrangements for running his business. S/Shri S.S.Panta and Paresh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submits that they have no objection to grant of reasonable time subject to the condition that the appellant pays the entire arrears of rent. It is pointed out that certain proceedings relating to the recovery of rent are pending. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is running a shop and his livelihood is dependent on such shop, I feel that it would be reasonable to grant him one years time to vacate the premises. Accordingly, I grant time to the defendant-appellant to vacate the premises upto 31.12.2010. This is, however, subject to the following conditions:- 1. That the appellant shall deposit the entire arrears including the amount which is subject matter of other legal 3 proceedings in the Registry of this Court latest by 28th February, 2010. He shall thereafter deposit the entire amount payable @ 1500/- per month upto December, 2010 latest by 31st March, 2010. 2. The appellant shall on or before 28th February, 2010 file an affidavit stating therein that he undertakes to vacate the premises by 31st December, 2010 failing which he shall be liable to action under the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. The appellant shall also cause affidavit(s) to be filled by his wife and major children, if any, in which they shall give an undertaking that they have no objection to such a decree being passed and they shall not object to the appellant handing over the possession of the demised premises to the landlord on or before 31st December, 2010. 4. It is made clear that in case the appellant does not file any such undertaking(s) or does not deposit the amount(s) by the date(s) fixed aforesaid then the respondent shall be free to execute the decree. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 17th December, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.