IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C R No 2019 of 2005 Mangru Mian, son of late Ghughuli Mian, resident of Mohalla - Bari Patan Devi, Bakaria Tola, P S - Alamganj, P O - Gulzarbagh, District - Patna - Defendant-Petitioner Versus Smt Kanti Devi, wife of Dwarika Prasad, resident of Mohalla - Tarini Prasad Lane (Ghasiarigali), Police Station - Khajekalan, P O - Jhauganj, District - Patna - Plaintiff-Opposite Party W I T H C R No 809 of 2006 Mangru Mian, son of late Ghughuli Mian, resident of Mohalla - Bari Patan Devi, Bakaria Tola, P S - Alamganj, P O - Gulzarbagh, District - Patna - Defendant-Petitioner Versus Smt Kanti Devi, wife of Dwarika Prasad, resident of Mohalla - Tarini Prasad Lane (Ghasiarigali), Police Station - Khajekalan, P O - Jhauganj, District - Patna - Plaintiff-Opposite Party *** For the petitioner : M/s J S Arora, Ajay Kr, Advocates For the Opp Party : M/s Shashi Shekhar, Ram Kumar, Advocates *** 9 20.05.2009 From the records, it appears that the petitioner being a tenant was being sued for eviction. Against one of the interlocutory orders, he wanted to prefer a civil revision to this Court and sought adjournment. The trial Court, having granted some indulgence, then refused to wait for this Court to hear the earlier civil revision that is Civil Revision No 2019 of 2005. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to deliver judgment. On the day when the trial Court was to deliver judgment, defendant- petitioner had filed an application before the trial Court apprehending adverse orders seeking time to vacate the premises except a small part thereof as mentioned in that application. On the same day, the trial Court allowed the suit and directed full eviction which is challenged 2 now in Civil Revision No 809 of 2006. When the matter was taken up together, these facts were brought to the notice by the plaintiff-opposite party. Mr Arora, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner was then asked to seek instructions whether his client would abide by his own application in the trial Court filed earlier. On instructions, Mr Arora states that the client would be bound by the application filed earlier. In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the judgment under challenge. Mr Arora submits that the order of this Court should be for 5 years’ time to vacate except for the reserved area in the said application. Learned counsel for the opposite party, the landlady submits that the tenant has enjoyed 3 years of the said 5 years’ period already as the eviction order was passed in the year 2006 and we are in middle of 2009. Considering the equities in the matter, in my view, petitioner- tenant would be obliged to hand over the possession of the entire premises to the plaintiff-landlady by 31st of December, 2011. The 5 feet x 10 feet area, as reserved by the petitioner, would be settled with the consent of the landlady-opposite party and retained on proper rent at Rs 150/- per month subject to such increment as the law may permit. So far as the compensation, that is payable by the tenant- petitioner for the present almost two and half years of usage to the landlady-opposite party, that would be at the rate of Rs 600/- per month to be paid within the first 10 days of every month without demur. This order has been passed in presence of lawyers of both the 3 parties and after hearing them. This disposes of the applications. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)