{1} DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)-377/2013

&

D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.61/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

JUDGMENT

(1) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.377/2013

IN

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.61/2013

IN

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7976/2008

RAMESH KUMAR MALPANI

Vs.

UMMED SINGH SUSHILA DEVI MEMORIAL TRUST,

JAIPUR & ORS.

WITH

(2) D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.61/2013

IN

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7976/2008

UMMED SINGH SUSHILA DEVI MEMORIAL TRUST, JAIPUR

Vs.

THE RENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR CITY,

JAIPUR & ORS.

DATE:03.05.2013

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SMT. MEENA V. GOMBER

REPORTABLE

Mr. S. Kasliwal, Senior Counsel assisted by

Mr. R.N. Vijay and

Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, for the appellant.

Mr. Anil Upman, for the respondent No.1.

****

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This intra-Court appeal is directed against

the orders of the Single Bench dated 01.03.2013,

08.03.2013 and 18.03.2013, whereby time to vacate the

rented premise, has been extended, despite specific

directions of the Division Bench, not to extend the

{2} DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)-377/2013

&

D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.61/2013

time to vacate the rented premise.

3.

From the submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties and the impugned orders of the Single

Bench as well as other documents placed on record, it

appears that appellant/landlord/applicant, Ramesh

Kumar Malpani filed an application for grant of

decree of eviction as well as recovery of amount

before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, which was allowed

in part vide order dated 04.10.2007 and a decree of

eviction was passed in favour of landlord, however,

decree in respect of recovery of amount was not

passed. Therefore, the landlord and tenant, both,

preferred two appeals before the Rent Appellate

Tribunal. The tenant preferred an appeal against the

order of eviction, whereas the landlord preferred an

appeal for granting decree of recovery of amount in

dispute also. The Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur,

vide its judgment dated 13.08.2008, dismissed the

appeal of tenant and affirmed the findings of the

Rent Tribunal in respect of eviction matter. So far

as appeal filed by the landlord is concerned, the

same was allowed and the matter was remitted to the

Rent Tribunal for fresh decision on an issue as to

whether the landlord is entitled to get a decree of

arrears of rent amount of Rs.1,25,700/-.

4.

Being aggrieved with the order of the Rent

Appellate Tribunal, the tenant/respondent No.1 filed

{3} DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)-377/2013

&

D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.61/2013

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7976/2008. During pendency

of the writ petition, the parties entered into a

compromise and an application under Order 23 Rule 3

CPC for recording the compromise was filed before the

Single Bench. As per terms of the compromise, the

tenant was required to hand over vacant and peaceful

possession of the rented premise on or befor