ORDER

Date : 18.01.2021 Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K.M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2) The petitioners are the plaintiff in TS No. 15(K)/2012, which was filed against the respondent and tried in the Court of learned Munsiff, Kaliabor, Nagaon. The suit contained the following prayers:

a) A decree for ejectment of the defendant from the schedule (A) from the houses and premises removing the belonging of the defendant there from and to deliver vacant and Khas possession of the same to the Plaintiffs and;

b) a decree for arrear rent as shown and described in Schedule (B) to also be passed against the defendant and in favour of the Plaintiffs and the said amount be allowed to run with interest @Rs.12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization and;

c) a decree be passed for removing illegal construction either permanent or semi permanent nature as described in Schedule (C) below made by the defendant and;

d) a decree for pendence arrear rent be passed on payment of further court fee payable by the plaintiffs and;

e) all cost for the suit also be declared in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

3) On contest, the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree passed on 18.07.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although in respect of issue no. 7, it was held that the petitioners are entitled to a decree for arrear rents from respondent and also a decree for eviction of the respondent from the suit house along with cost of the suit. At the order’s part of the judgment, the petitioners were held to be entitled to recovery of arrear rents of Rs.67,500/- being the monthly rent @ Rs.7,500/- from December, 2011 to August, 2012. It is submitted that said decree was challenged by the respondent by filing TA No. 34/2014, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon by judgment and decree dated 12.06.2015. The aggrieved respondent had filed RSA 11/2016 before this Court and this Court by order dated 29.01.2016, permitted the prayer of the respondent to withdraw the second appeal with liberty to file civil revision petition by holding that the first appellate judgment and decree was not appealable as the same was one under Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Accordingly, the respondent’s side had filed CRP 170/2016. Thereafter, the maintainability of the CRP 170/2016 was questioned and on the basis of submission made by the petitioners herein, the said revision petition was again converted to second appeal and the same was registered as RSA

145/2017.

4) In course of the proceeding, as per order dated 27.07.2017, the learned counsel for the respondent sought adjournment to take instruction on the proposal made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were agreeable to extent his stay by eight months to accommodate him to shift his business and the matter was thereafter listed on

11.08.2017, on which date, the following orders was passed:

“Heard Mr. P Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents. On the basis of the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2017, Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant, fairly submits that the appellant has accepted the proposal as placed before this court by the respondents through their learned counsel. Accordingly, this second appeal is allowed to be withdrawn subject to the condition that the respondents shall not execute the decree for the next 9 (nine) months from today. However, the respondents are at liberty to go ahead with the execution of the said decree for ejectment of the appellant/ defendant in the event the appellant/ defendant does not vacate the suit premises after 9 (nine) months. As a good gesture of the respondents/ plaintiffs during the period of 9 months from today the appellant/ defendant shall pay Rs. 5000/- (Ru