ZUBAIDA AND ANR. Vs. TASLIM CHISTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 10, Deoria allowing respondents-landlords application for release of premise in question and appellate order dated 23.12.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Deoria dismissing petitioners' Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2008 confirming Trial Court's order. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and learned Counsel for the petitioners finding it difficult to assail the same, at the outset stated that petitioners may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premise in question. Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned Counsel appearing for respondents-landlords stated that the landlords have also suffered sufficiently and though in principle did not object the request of petitioners for granting reasonable time but requested this Court that in ascertaining this time the Court may take into consideration the hardship and difficulties already suffered by respondents in commencing, conducting and pursuing the proceedings in question.

(2.) Considering the above facts and circumstances and also with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties I find it appropriate that petitioners may be allowed six months' time to vacate the premise in question. Sri K.K. Rao, Advocate appearing for petitioners also stated that petitioners undertake to vacate the premise within aforesaid period.

(3.) In view of the above, it is provided that petitioners, if file an affidavit within ten days from today before the Trial Court containing an undertaking that they shall vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord-respondent within six months from today, execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed. It is also made clear that the petitioners-tenants shall continue to pay rent of premise in question to respondent-landlord month-to-month. However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord(s) to proceed for execution of impugned orders immediately thereafter in accordance with law. It is also provided that in case the petitioners-tenants after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question failed to comply with any of the conditions, as aforesaid, he shall be liable to pay for such non-compliance of pious undertaking given to the Court an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall also be recovered from petitioners-tenants alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is dismissed.