Gurumukh vs Chaina Ram

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—This civil second appeal u/s 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1993 as passed by the Civil Judge, Bikaner in Civil Appeal No. 22/1991 arising out of the suit (CO No. 32/1986) for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was admitted for consideration on 15.07.1993 on the following substantial questions of law:

Whether failure to deposit rent u/s 19A on refusal of Money Order by the land-lord makes the tenant a defaulter as to furnish a ground for eviction u/s 13(1)(a)?

Whether the provisions of deposit monthly rent during the pendency of suit based on default by 15th of each succeeding month is mandatory or directory?

Whether the finding of the lower appellate court holding the appellant defaulter on the basis of decision in Bajarangalal''s case 1988 (1) RLR 360 is legally sustainable after decision of this Court in Smt. Manak Bai and Ors. v. Kalyan Bux 1989 (2) RLR 704?

Whether the finding of the lower appellate court about the comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff is vitiated, in view of the finding of the trial court, that the plaintiff had alternative space to construct the required Bathroom, the necessity pleaded by the plaintiff, which has not been reversed by the lower appellate court?

Whether the finding of the lower appellate court about the change of user is vitiated because no person of reasonable prudence would arrive at such finding on the basis of material on record?

This appeal was earlier taken up for hearing on 06.02.2009 when the learned Counsel for the respondent made a statement before the Court that as per compromise, the respondent had already taken possession of the disputed premises from the appellant. However, at request, the learned Counsel for the appellant was granted time to complete his instructions. The matter has thereafter come up for hearing today only, i.e., after about 11/2 years. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that he tried to establish contact with the appellant but could not; and he has not received any further instructions in the matter.

In view of the submissions so made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, there does not appear any reason to doubt the statement as made by the learned Counsel for the respondent on 06.02.2009 that the appellant has already delivered the possession of the suit premises to him as per compromise. Once this statement is accepted, there appears no reason or requirement to answer any of the substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal. Rather, the appeal could only be considered as infructuous.

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.