CSA 32/02 Avantika Vs. Smt. Sushil Kanwar & Ors. (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.32/2002 Avantika Vs. Smt. Sushil Kanwar and others Date of Judgment :: 15th May,2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, for appellant. Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma, for respondents. ....... By the Court :- This is second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 18/10/2001 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.44/2000 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 7/9/2000 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City (West), Jaipur in Civil Suit No.968/1993 (1055/1986). 2. The relevant facts in brief are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that defendant is a tenant in suit premises since 1/6/1978 on monthly rent of Rs.60/-. The CSA 32/02 Avantika Vs. Smt. Sushil Kanwar & Ors. (2) eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent and material alteration in the suit premises. 3. The defendant in her written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and stated that she had taken one room along with store and kitchen on rent from Thakur Kesri Singhji on monthly rent of Rs.60/- and during his lifetime with his permission she had constructed latrine and store room which is continuing in her use from 1978 and she also obtained electric connection in her name. It was further the case of the defendant that she paid rent in cash and money order was also sent after the death of Thakur Kesri Singhji but Kamdar Gulab Singh had refused to accept the same, therefore, she deposited the rent upto February, 1987 under section 19-A in the Court, thus no rent was due upon the defendant. She further averred that after the death of Thakur Kesri Singhji, Kamdar Gulab Singh and one Tej Singh got the latrine and bathroom demolished at the instance of Thakur Raghunath Singh and plaintiff, therefore, defendant lodged a report in the police station against such illegal CSA 32/02 Avantika Vs. Smt. Sushil Kanwar & Ors. (3) action. 4. During the pendency of the suit original plaintiff Prabhu Singh expired, therefore, his legal heirs were brought on record. 5. Issues were framed. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties held that defendant committed default and issue of material alteration was also decided against the defendant and on that count decree of eviction was passed and decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff was also granted. In turn, the appeal filed by the tenant-defendant has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this second appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments of the courts below and also the material made available during the course of arguments. 7. The main contention on behalf of the appellant is that she is an old widow lady and she could not manage any alternate accommodation, therefore reasonable time may be allowed for vacation of the suit premises. CSA 32/02 Avantika Vs. Smt. Sushil Kanwar & Ors. (4) 8. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed this prayer and while relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Satpal Singh Vs. Chunni Lal (Dead) through LRs., reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 173, it was submitted that the coordinate bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2262/2008 granted time uptil 31/3/2009 on submission of undertaking within a period of two weeks but the defendant failed to submit such undertaking before the trial court in compliance of this Court order dated 18/9/2008, therefore, the appellant is precluded to make similar prayer again. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. Both the courts below after considering the material in detail have arrived at concurrent finding of fact on the issue of default and material addition/alteration in which I do not find any illegality and perversity. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. So far prayer of granting time for vacation of the suit premises is concerned, CSA 32/02 Avantika Vs. Smt. Sushil Kanwar & Ors. (5) earlier the coordinate bench of this Court has accepted such prayer in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2262/2008 and vide order dated 18/9/2008 the appellant was granted time till 31/3/2009 for vacation of the disputed premises on the condition of deposition of entire arrears of rent as well as on furnishing of undertaking in this regard, but the appellant did not fulfill the conditions laid down in the said order. Keeping in view these entire facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant further time for vacation of the suit premises. 10. Consequently, this appeal along with stay application is hereby dismissed at the stage in limine. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D21