CSA 418/08 Laxmi Narain Agrawal and another Vs. Tejmal (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.418/2008 Laxmi Narain Agrawal and another Vs. Tejmal Date of Judgment :: 26th August, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. A.K. Pareek, for appellants. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, for respondent. ....... By the Court :- This is defendants' second appeal against the concurrent judgment and decree of eviction. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants does not press this appeal on merits and only seeks reasonable time for handing over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent-landlord. 3. During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondent-landlord has agreed for granting time to the appellant-defendants upto 31/10/2010. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar and keeping in view that appellants have not pressed this appeal on merits and only sought time to vacate the suit shop, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for the parties CSA 418/08 Laxmi Narain Agrawal and another Vs. Tejmal (2) this appeal along with the stay application is dismissed with the order as follows :- (i) The appellants shall hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent-landlord on or before 31/10/2010; (ii) The appellants shall continue to pay/deposit the monthly rent of Rs.125/- to the respondent-plaintiff-landlord by 15th of every month till vacant possession is handed over and shall further pay the arrears, if any, within one month and three defaults in making the payment of the monthly amount shall make the respondent-plaintiff-landlord entitle to get the suit shop vacated. (iii) The appellants shall not create any third party interest in the suit shop; (iv) The appellants shall submit an undertaking in writing containing the above terms and conditions in the trial court within a period of one month. 5. In case the appellants fail to comply with any of the above term and condition, the plaintiff-respondent- landlord would have a right to execute the decree. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D44