: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.782 OF 2009 Kalpana R. Bandekar ... Applicant V/s. The Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar i/b V.D. Surve for Applicant Ms.Madhavi Tavanandi for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 17, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been preferred against the order passed by the appellate Court which confirms the order of Estate Officer directing the applicant to vacate the suit premises. The applicant was employed as a senior auditor in the Office of the Accountant General Audit 1, Mumbai. It appears that she is occupying the premises owned by Respondent No.1 even after her retirement and therefore the order of eviction has been passed by the Estate Officer. The appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act has confirmed this order of the Estate Officer. 2. In my opinion, no case for interference has been made out by the applicant. : 2 : 3. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant seeks some time to vacate the premises. He submits that one year’s period be granted to the applicant to vacate the premises since her husband is suffering from Spondilothesis and therefore, it is difficult for her to arrange for another accommodation. 4. In my view, this period cannot be accepted as reasonable. The applicant shall vacate the suit premises within three months from today on the usual undertaking being furnished by her and the adults residing with her in the suit premises within two weeks from today. 5. Civil Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.