1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11853/2010. Pradeep Soni & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors. ... Date of Order :: 23rd December 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. H.R. Soni, for the petitioners. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, for the respondent No.1. .... BY THE COURT: This writ petition, preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2010 as passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, came up before the Court for the first time on 20.12.2010 when, for the counsel not appearing, the petitioner No.2 and so also his wife appeared in person and the following order was passed:- “In this matter, in the first round, wife of the petitioner No.2 appeared in person while placing on record the consent from the counsel for appearance; and it was stated that the petitioner No.1 is hospitalised and petitioner No.2 was attending on him. The wife of the petitioner No.2 argued the matter for some time and then submitted that the petitioner may be granted some reasonable time to vacate. On being asked to make such submission in writing, now the petitioner No.2 has appeared and has filed an undertaking seeking two years time to vacate. The petitioner also states that the respondent is at present carrying out the process for getting the shop vacated. Having regard to the circumstances, let notice be issued to the respondent No.1 to show cause only to the extent as to why some reasonable time to vacate be not extended to the petitioner. Notices be made returnable on 23.12.2010 and be given 'Dasti' to the petitioner. Having regard to the circumstances, in the meanwhile status quo as it exists today, more particularly at 12.15 p.m. today, shall be maintained till the next date. Requisites during the course of day.” 2 Today, the learned counsel Mr. B.M. Bhojak has put in appearance for the contesting respondent and submits that the possession of the suit premises was indeed recovered on 20.12.2010 at about 11:00 a.m. The learned counsel Mr. H.R. Soni appearing for the petitioners submits that now it remains only a prayer in the nature of mercy-petition that the petitioners may be allowed to occupy and retain the shop in question for some time so that alternative arrangements could be made for the business. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready to submit the requisite undertaking today itself and shall also make payment of the entire amount payable under the impugned orders within 15 days from today. The learned counsel Mr. Bhojak though has expressed reservations on the prayer so made on behalf of the petitioners but submitted that if at all any such indulgence is granted by this Court, the petitioners may be put to the terms for payment of enhanced amount towards mesne profits; and at present, the market rent of the premises in question is around Rs. 1,000/- per month. Though there being no ground to interfere in the orders impugned, this writ petition is required to be and is hereby dismissed; however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it appears just and appropriate that the petitioners be granted some indulgence to occupy and retain the possession of the suit premises for some time while putting them to terms and conditions. It is noticed that the Appellate Tribunal granted six months' time to vacate from 09.03.2010 and then, the possession was allegedly recovered only on 20.12.2010, the 3 day when the matter was being considered in motion hearing. Of course, the respondent cannot be faulted in adopting such proceedings but when genuine problems of the petitioners have been stated before the Court and some breathing time has been sought for making alternative arrangements, it shall serve the cause of justice in granting some indulgence to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are granted indulgence to occupy and retain the possession of the suit premises until 31.05.2011 subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners shall personally submit an undertaking supported by affidavit before the Rent Tribunal today itself to the effect that on or before 31th May 2011, they shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-respondent. They shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the suit premises nor to make any alteration and not to assign, sublet or in any manner part with possession to any other person and not to put the premises to any use other than the present use and not to cause any nuisance. (ii) The petitioners shall deposit within 15 days all the arrears, if any, of the rent/mesne profits and of the decreetal amount and shall further pay to the landlord the amount for use and occupation of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) per month with effect from 1st January 2011 or deposit this amount in the bank account of the landlord (if particulars whereof are furnished to the petitioners) month by month on or before 15th day of the next month. 4 In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is considered proper and hence observed that the respondent- landlord shall hand over the possession of the suit premises to the petitioners by tomorrow, if the petitioners carry out the compliance of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to comply with the condition (i) supra, the respondent shall be entitled to retain the possession of the premises in question. It is further made clear that even if the possession is handed over to the petitioners, if they fail to comply with any of the conditions aforesaid or violate any terms of the undertaking, the respondent shall be entitled to get the certificate for possession executed, if occasion so arise. There shall be no order as to costs of this writ petition. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. /Mohan/