Date : 25/07/2012 1.00. Present Civil Revision Application No. under section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the petitioners herein – original defendants to quash and set aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in HRP Suit No.1629 of 1992 dtd.26/7/1999 as well as the Judgement and Order passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.150 of 1999 dtd.17/11/2003, by which the learned Appellate Bench has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioners herein – original defendants confirming the judgement and decree passed by the learned Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad decreeing the suit and passing eviction decree against the petitioners - original defendants – tenants under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2.00. After the matter was argued at length and this Court was not inclined to allow the present Civil Revision Application on merits, Mr.Ketan D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, under the instructions of the respective petitioners herein, has stated at the bar that the petitioners seek permission to withdraw the present Civil Revision Application and seek permission to withdraw present Civil Revision Application, however considering the financial position of the petitioners as well as considering the old age of the petitioner No.1, it is requested to grant time upto December, 2013 to the petitioners to vacate the suit premises.
2.01. Mr.Ketan Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also stated at the bar under the instructions of the respective petitioners that at present petitioner No.1/1 named Kantaben widow of Jayantilal Somnath, petitioner No.1/2 named Jashvant Jayantilal and petitioner No.1/3 named Harshad Jayantilal, only are residing in the suit premises and only they are claiming tenancy right in the suit premises on the death of the original tenant named Jayantilal Somnath. He has also stated at the bar that except the aforesaid three persons i.e. petitioner Nos.1/1 to 1/3, nobody is residing in the suit premises.
2.02. Mr.Ketan Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also stated at the bar that an undertaking has been filed, affirmed by the petitioner Nos.1/1 named Kantaben widow of Jayantilal Somnath and petitioner No.1/3 – Harshad son of Jayantilal Somnath undertaking to vacate suit premises on or before 1/1/2014 and that the respective petitioners who are in possession and occupation of the suit premises shall handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent herein on or before 1/1/2014.
2.03. Mr.Ketan Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also stated at the bar that similar undertaking of the remaining occupier i.e. petitioner No.1/2 named Jashwantilal son of Jayantilal Somnath also shall be filed within a period of one week from today in the registry of this Court with a copy to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2.04. Mr.Ketan Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also stated at the bar that the respective petitioners have also undertaken that in the meantime and till the petitioners handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises, as stated above, they shall not transfer, alienate, sub-let, or part with the possession or shall not create third party rights in the suit premises in any manner whatsoever.
3.00. The undertaking filed by the petitioner Nos.1/1 named Kantaben widow of Jayantilal Somnath and petitioner No.1/3 named Harshad son of Jayantilal Somnath is directed to be taken on record.
The petitioner No.1/2 named Jashvant son of Jayantilal Somnath is hereby directed to file similar undertaking within a period of one week, as agreed by the petitioners.
4.00. Mr.Jigar Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – heir and legal representative of original plaintiff – landlord, under the instruction of his client has stated at the bar that the he has no objection if time up to 31/12/2013 is granted to vacate the suit premises.
5.00. In view of the above, present Civil Revision Application is dismissed as withdrawn, however considering the request made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners under the instructions of their clients, time to vacate the suit premises is granted to the petitioner Nos.1/1 to 1/3 herein who are reported to be in occupation and possession of the suit premises, upto 31/12/2013. The respondents are directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent herein on or before 31/12/2013 without fail, failing which it will be open for the respondent herein to initiate appropriate proceedings for evicting the suit premises as well as to initiate proceedings for breach of the aforesaid Undertaking as well as under the Contempt of Courts Act and/or any other law.
5.01. In the meantime, the petitioners herein are directed to continue to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs.14/- per month (which was the amount of rent) as and when due and payable.
5.02. It goes without saying that it will be open for the respondents to withdraw the amount of rent which might have been deposited by the petitioners in the lower court.
5.03. With the observations and directions, as aforesaid, present Civil Revision Application is dismissed as withdrawn. Rule is discharged.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik