IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1871 of 2010 (M/S) President Travel Services and another ..… Petitioners Versus Mrs. Sant Kaur and others ..… Respondents Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Advocate for the respondents. With Writ Petition No. 1933 of 2010 (M/S) Mrs. Surinder Kaur and others ..… Petitioners Versus Mrs. Sant Kaur and others ..… Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. The learned Senior Counsel Shri V.K. Kohli in Writ Petition No. 1871 of 2010 (M/S) and Shri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned Senior Counsel in Writ Petition No. 1933 of 2010 submitted during the course of the hearing of the petition that they do not wish to argue the matter any further on the merits of the case and would be satisfied if the Court grants a reasonable time to the petitioners to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession to the landlord/opposite party. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners are running a travel business from the premises in question and have about 45 employees on its roll. The travel agency has also been granted a licence to deal in foreign currency from the premises in question and, consequently, the petitioners are required to locate another premises to house their travel agency and accommodate their employees. Further, on shifting their business, fresh permission from the Reserve Bank of India and other departments are required to be obtained for shifting their licence to the new premises. For the aforesaid purpose, the learned Senior Counsels 2 prayed that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises in question. On the other hand Shri Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the landlady / opposite party submitted that the landlady is now 98 years old and wants to reap the fruits of the litigation and would like to shift in the premises as early as possible. The learned counsel further submitted that the period of three months would be sufficient for the petitioners to vacate the premises in question. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions, the Court is of the opinion that time till 31st August, 2011 would be sufficient for the petitioners to shift to another location and get their licenses transferred accordingly and, hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the landlady / opposite party. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are disposed of with the observation that the orders of the Court below are affirmed. The petitioners are directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the landlady/opposite party on or before 31st August, 2011 provided all the petitioners give an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority on or before 31st January, 2011 indicating therein that they would hand over vacant and peaceful possession on or before 31st August, 2011. In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioners will pay to the opposite parties for use and damages for the premises in question @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. from January, 2011 to 31st August, 2011. It has been stated that the petitioners have already deposited damages for the month of January, 2011. Consequently, for the month of February, 2011 to August, 2011, the petitioners will pay the damages in advance in lumpsum till 31st August, 2011 before the 28th February, 2011 by means of a cross demand draft in favour of the landlord / opposite party. The amount of damages deposited by the petitioners can be 3 withdrawn by the landlady/opposite parties without furnishing security. In view of the aforesaid, the parties will bear their costs. Certified copy of the order shall be made available within 24 hrs. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 5th January, 2011 Shiv