HEERA LAL Vs. KALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 20th August, 2010, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the appellant to find out from the appellant as to the period he would required for vacating the premises which belong to the respondent. On 20th August, 2010, the respondent had given an undertaking that out of generosity of an elder brother, he would not disturb the possession of the appellant till 31st August, 2010. According to the order dated 27th August, 2010, this Court was informed that the appellant has been dispossessed from his portion. However, in order to encourage harmony within the family, as the appellant and the respondent happen to be real brothers, this Court directed the respondent to restore the possession to the appellant by 5:00 PM. On 3rd November, 2010 this case came up on an application filed by the respondent for modification of the order dated 27.08.2010. This Court had directed both the parties to be present before this Court on 8th November, 2010. Today, both the parties are present before this Court. This Court has asked the appellant as to how long he will take to vacate the premises. The appellant states that he would require at least one year to vacate the premises. However, the respondent has categorically stated that he wants his own house as early as possible, as differences have arisen between the two.

(2.) Considering the fact that the appellant is occupying only small portion of the premises, considering the fact that it is a residential premises, in the interest of justice, this Court directs the appellant to vacate the premises within a period of three months from today. The appellant gives an undertaking that he will vacate the premises within a period of three months from today. In case, the appellant does not fulfil this solemn undertaking given before this Court, the respondent shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellant.

(3.) Since the entire evidence have been discussed threadbare by the learned trial Court, this Court does not find any reason for interfering with the judgment dated 09.10.2009. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. However, the appellant shall implement the undertaking given before this Court.