IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1333 of 2008 MD. JALALUDDIN Versus BHAGWANJEE PRASAD ----------- 4. 6.1.2009 Heard Mr. S.R.C. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. After some arguments, Mr. Pandey fairly submits that even though he had some valid submissions on the question of personal necessity, he finds himself on difficulty in assailing the finding with regard to the default in payment of rent. He had in fact initially tried to wriggle out of the situation by taking a plea that this issue of default in payment of rent was earlier sought to be given up by the plaintiff-landlord-opposite party but when his attention was drawn towards the impugned judgment recording that a specific issue no. VI was framed by the Court below which also on contest has been decided against the defendant-tenant petitioner in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties holding 2 that there was a persistent default in payment of rent by the petitioner ever since July 2003, Mr. Pandey fairly agreed that the petitioner will not press this Civil Revision application in case this court gives an indulgence to him to vacate the premises within a period of nine months from today. Mr. Pandey for this purpose has given an undertaking on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will vacate the premises in question within a period of nine months from today and handover the vacant peaceful possession to the plaintiff-landlord- opposite party and would file an affidavit to this effect before this Court on or before 12th of October 2009. Mr. Pandey also informs this Court that pursuant to the interim order passed on 22.8.2008, the petitioner had paid the entire dues of rent and has also kept on paying current rent. This Court would record the said submission of Mr. Pandey and in view of the fact that the prayer of petitioner for remaining in possession of the suit premises for next nine months and 3 also in view of his undertaking to vacate the premises after nine months has been allowed, this court further directs that the petitioner would be under bounden obligation to also pay the month to month rent for this period of nine months. With the aforesaid observations/directions this Civil Revision Application is dismissed as not pressed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Rsh