1 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.83/2010. Bhanwar Lal. vs. Smt. Janki Devi and another. Date : 3.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Suresh Srimali, for the appellant. Mr.RK Thanvi, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2006 passed by the trial court and dismissal of his appeal by judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff/landlady's own case was that she and her husband had three properties in the city of Jodhpur and those properties have been distributed between their three sons and the property in question fell in the share of her son for whose need, the suit for eviction was filed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that once landlady admitted that she transferred the property to her son, she cannot maintain the suit 2 as she is not the owner of the premises after the premises has been transferred to her son. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as the impugned judgments. Admittedly, the above plea of non- maintainability of suit because of transfer of the property was not taken by the appellant before the trial court or before the first appellate court. Be it as it may be, the further fact is that when asked, the appellant today is also not in a position to deny the fact that the appellant is tenant of the respondent/landlady. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the plea which is nothing but an after thought. Otherwise also, the courts below have considered the entire facts and evidence and the concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered unless substantial questions of law arise which is not here in the present case. Consequently, this second appeal deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that one year's time may be granted to the appellant to vacate the premises in 3 question. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that at the most, time may be granted upto 31.12.2010. I considered this prayer of learned counsel for the appellant. Looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant be granted time upto 30.4.2011 to vacate the premises in question. Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the appellant furnishes a written undertaking before the trial court within a period of one month from today that he shall hand over the vacant possession to the respondent/landlady by or before 30.4.2011 and shall not part with the possession or sublet the premises in question during this period and shall pay all the arrears of rent and decreetal amount, if due, within a period of two months from today and shall also deposit the rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month of his tenancy, in the bank account of the respondent/landlady, particulars of which be supplied to the appellant, the decree under challenge shall not be executed till 1.5.2011. In case of non-compliance of this order or default in payment of rent mentioned above, the respondent will be free to execute the decree 4 forthwith without obtaining any order from this Court. With the aforesaid concession, this second appeal is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya