CHIEF POST MASTER Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a judgment and decree passed in a suit for possession and for recovery of mesne profits. The court below has, while partly decreeing the suit for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, retained the proceedings in the suit to determine the amount of mesne profits wherein the plaintiff on account of the unauthorized use and occupation of the said premises. It is not in dispute that the contractual period of tenancy has since expired. It is also common ground that the month to month tenancy of the appellant stands terminated by serving a valid notice of termination. In the absence of any contractual or statutory protection against eviction, the trial court was, in our opinion, justified in decreeing the suit for possession. In fairness to counsel for appellant, we must say that even he did not dispute the above position. All that he argued was that since the premises is being used as a branch Post Office for the past 50 years, eviction of the appellants would dislocate the postal services for the residents of the vicinity. It was, therefore, contended that if the respondent landlady was not willing to renew the lease the appellants may be given reasonable time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for the appellant on the instructions of the Senior Superintendant Post Offices, who is also present in person, submits that he has instructions from the appellants to state that the appellants shall vacate the premises by the 31st of January 2009. He prayed for disposal of the appeal granting time to the appellants to vacate the premises by the aforesaid date. The appellants are according to him ready and willing to file an undertaking to the court that they shall vacate the premises without putting the respondent to the trouble of executing the decree.

(2.) Mr. Dewan, counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder, on the other hand, submitted that since the appellants were not ready to offer the market rental of the premises and the amount of Rs.10,000/- or so offered for a renewal of the lease was not even a fraction of the actual rental value of the premises, there was no question of granting a fresh lease to the appellant. He further stated that the grant of time as prayed for by the appellant should be subject to the determination of the amount of compensation for unauthorized use and occupation by the trial court in the pending proceedings. He urged that grant of time till 31st January 2009 should also be subject to filing of undertaking by the Appellants so that in the event of default in the delivery of possession to the decree holder, apart from execution of the decree, the respondent can initiate appropriate contempt proceedings for the breach of the undertaking.

(3.) In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the submissions made at the bar, we dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. We, however, grant time till 31st January 2009 to the appellants to voluntarily handover the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff ' decree holder. The grant of time is subject to the following two conditions: