Rajni Devi vs Nathu Singh

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—1. Having lost before the two Courts below concurrently, the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant-defendant in a suit for eviction against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 01, Ajmer in Civil Regular Appeal No. 27/1998 "Smt. Rajni Devi v. LRs of Nathu Singh" by which, the learned First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal of the appellant-defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.06.1998 passed by the learned Trial Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 3, Ajmer in Civil Original Suit No. 230/1991 "Nathu Singh v. Smt. Rajni" by which, the suit of the plaintiff-Nathu Singh for eviction in respect of the suit premises, viz., a residential house (two rooms, kitchen and bath room) situated at Ajmer was decreed on the ground of nuisance and bona fide need of the plaintiff-landlord.

The relevant portion of the findings on the issue of bona fide need of the plaintiff and the order passed by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.06.1998 is quoted herein below for ready reference:--

The first appeal filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 02.06.1998 of the learned Trial Court was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 24.08.2001. The relevant portion of the order of the learned First Appellate Court is quoted herein below for ready reference:--

Being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below, the present appellant-defendant has filed the present second in this Court on 10.01.2001 which is admitted on 04.01.2006. The order dated 04.01.2006 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:--

"Admitted on the substantial grounds of law mentioned in para (4) of the memo of appeal.

"1. Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are vitiated on account of misreading and non reading of important evidence available on record?

Whether the learned trial court was justified in closing the right of defendant of filing the written statement and the same has resulted into miscarriage of justice to her?

Whether nuisance as alleged in the present case can be made a ground for eviction, when admittedly the plaintiff and his family members are residing in separate house in different locality?

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the need of the plaintiff can be said to be bonafide and reasonable when they have not availed the premises available to them in house in question?

Whether the need of the plaintiff can be said to be genuine when the plaintiff has admittedly entered into agreement to sell the premises in question?

Whether the greater hardship will not be caused to defendant if she is evicted from one single room, which she is occupying with her two children?"

Inasmuch as respondents have sought eviction on the ground of personal necessity as well, list the main matter for arguments on 27.2.2006."

On last occasion, i.e., 30.09.2015, a coordinate Bench of this Court had granted time to the learned counsel for the respondent to relook into the matter and file appropriate application. The entire order dated 30.09.2015 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:--

"Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Mr. Khushwant for the appellant.

Mr. Rajeev Surana, for the respondent.

After going through the terms of settlement before the Mediator, the Court is of the opinion that such settlement does not seem to be in the interest of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to relook into the matter and file appropriate application.

Put up after two weeks, as prayed for.

Sd/- (Bela M. Trivedi) J."

Both the learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have entered into a mutual settlement in the eviction case and the appellant-defendant-tenant is agreed to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the residential house in question on or before 04.02.2019 and the respondent-plaintiff-landlord is agreed to waive the remaining amount of arrears subject to the withdrawal of the amount already deposited in the Court.

The terms of the settlement reached at between the parties in the Mediation Centre attached with this Court, which are reduced in writing and duly signed by the parties and identified by the learned Mediator Shri R.C. Dadhich, RHJS (Retd.), are quoted herein below for ready reference:--

"Mediation Centre, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench Jaipur.

In the matter:-- S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 489/01 Smt. Rajni Devi v. Nathu Singh

Mediator:-- Sh. R.C. Dadhich, RHJS (Retd.)

Present:--

Smt. Rajni Devi, (appellant)

Hari Prakash

Himat Singh

Prem Singh

Smt. Sukh Devi

(2 To 5 Respondent)

Mediation Report

Date 4.2.2015

For Appellate Smt. Rajni Devi along With her Advocate Sh. Akshat Choudhary Present along with their Advocate Sh. Rajeev Surana Present before the Mediator. The Parties appellant and the respondents have agreed to settle the dispute as under:--

That The appellant Rajni Devi and respondents have agreed that the appellant Rajni Devi shall vacate the premises (two rooms, kitchen, Bath Room) after four years i.e. on or before 4 February, 2019 and Smt. Appellate Rajni Devi (Tenant) also agrees that she will hand over cler, vacate peaceful possession on or before 4.2.2019 to the respondents failing which the respondents shall be entitled to get the possession of the above mentioned premises by due execution as per law as decree of eviction.

That both the parties have agreed that whatever the amount deposited towards rent or mesne profit, the appellant shall be entitled to receive the same and respondent shall cooperate in withdrawal of the amount at appellant's own costs.

Both the learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties are still agreeable on the aforesaid terms of the settlement and will abide by the same despite the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2015, therefore, the present second appeal is not required to be decided on merits and for answering the substantial questions of law. The learned counsels also submitted that the present second appeal may be disposed of in terms of the settlement entered into between the parties, as aforesaid.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, including the reasons assigned by the learned two Courts below for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and as also the terms of the settlement, as quoted herein above, this Court is satisfied that the present second appeal, filed by the appellant-defendant having lost before both the Courts below, deserves to be disposed of in terms of the mutual settlement without answering the substantial question of law framed, as indicated above.

Accordingly and in view of the above, the present second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-defendant-Smt. Rajni Devi W/o Mohan Singh is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid settlement entered into between the parties. Eviction decree be prepared in accordance with the aforesaid terms of the settlement. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the both the Courts below and to the parties concerned forthwith.