IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 37/2010 (Scooter India Limited & Another Versus Smt. Suraj Sharma & Another) Date of Order :: 3rd February, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Bihari Lal Agarwal, counsel for the appellants Mr. R.K. Agarwal, counsel for the respondent no. 1 BY THE COURT: The present special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14633/2009, whereby the learned Single Judge having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, granted six months' time, in the interest of justice, to the petitioner-appellant for handing over the premises in question, provided he furnished an undertaking before the Rent Tribunal that he would hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question within six months and would pay mesne profit @ 2½ times of the rent for the said period and would hand over the possession without any objection. -2- 2. E Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge and canvassed that pursuant to the judgment dated 9.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has already furnished an undertaking before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur that he would hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question within six months and would pay mesne profits @ 2½ times of the rent for the said period and would hand over the possession without any objection, hence this special appeal is of no avail. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar and carefully perused the impugned orders passed by the trial court as also the Appellate Court and the judgment dated 9.12.2009 passed the learned Single Judge. 4. It is relevant to record that the learned single Judge having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully -3- scanned the judgments of the courts below observed thus: “After perusing both the judgments, I am of the opinion that there is a concurrent finding given by both the courts below which do not call for any interference by this Court, because no re-appreciation of evidence is permissible under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.” 5. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the re-appreciation of the evidence led by the parties before the learned Rent Tribunal was not within the scope under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the courts below properly appreciated the evidence led by both the parties and arrived at a concurrent finding. The learned Single Judge did not deem it just and proper to intervene in the concurrent finding of the courts below. We are in full consonance with the observation of the learned Single Judge and finding arrived at by him. The judgment dated 9.12.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judges does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same warrants no intervention. -4- 6. For the reasons stated above, the special appeal being bereft of merits, stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. (K.S. RATHORE),J. DK/-