1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Ramesh Joshi Vs. Smt. Rama Bai (S. B. Civil Second Appeal No.98/2010) S. B. Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular First Appeal No.18/2009, whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) East, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.339/2002 (494/2002). Date of Judgment: August 05, 2010 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr.R.K. Daga, for the appellant. Mr.Manish Sharma, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) East, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Civil Judge has decreed the suit for eviction and perpetual injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff, and also aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the 2 defendant-appellant, and upheld the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2006, the appellant has challenged both the judgments and decrees in this second appeal. The brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff, Smt. Rama Bai, filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent, and for perpetual injunction against the defendant- appellant. In the suit, the plaintiff-respondent claimed that a shop bearing No.9, North Facing was let out to the defendant-appellant on 24.02.1983 for a rent of Rs.600/- p.m. The defendant- appellant executed a rent note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It was further claimed that the defendant-appellant did not make payment since 01.01.1999 to 30.05.2001 and he is not using the shop since January, 1999 and the same is closed without any sufficient cause. It was further claimed that the defendant-appellant is demanding an amount for vacating the said shop. Therefore, the suit should be decreed in her favour. The defendant-appellant filed detailed written statement and denied the claim of the respondent-plaintiff. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned trial court framed eight issues. The plaintiff-respondent produced five 3 witnesses including herself. Similarly, the defendants produced three witnesses including himself. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge, vide judgment dated 01.12.2006, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant-appellant preferred the first appeal, before the learned first appellate court. However, the learned Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 02.02.2010 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, the present second appeal before this court. Although arguments were addressed at length, but this court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. All the questions are question of fact. However, during the course of arguments, the parties are ad-idem that the appellant is willing to vacate the rented premises in question within one year from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, and the appellant gives a solemn undertaking to this effect. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has no objection if the appellant were to vacate the rented premises in question within the stipulated period. 4 Therefore, this court directs the defendant-appellant to submit an undertaking within one month, from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, before the trial court that he will vacate the rented premises in question within one year, from the date of this judgment. In case the appellant does not submit the undertaking before the trial court, within one month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, the respondent-plaintiff shall be free to execute the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2006, and to have the rented premises in question vacated from the appellant. The respondent-plaintiff would also be free to initiate contempt proceeding against the appellant in case the undertaking given to the Court were violated. With the above observations, the second appeal, is hereby disposed of. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki