CRP 364/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr. Ck SarmaBaruah, learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants and Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlord. The petitioner is tenant in respect of the RCC shop room measuring appr oxmately 9’ x 24’ with extension of the north of approx 9’ x 10’ being part of t he Holding No. 190 of Ward No. 2, situated at Rangapara Balipara P.W.D. Road, R angapara town. The petitioner is using the said room for running a Pharmacy un der the name and style Saha Pharmacy paying Rs. 450/- as monthly rent. The pl aintiff, having felt necessity for the said room for his own use and occupation , demanded to vacate the said premises. The petitioner is also a defaulter in th e payment of monthly rent but due to non-compliance of the request to vacate th e said premises, the plaintiff filed a Title Suit No. 27/03 in the court of Civi l Judge, Junior Division at Tezpur. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. Upon plea ding of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 6(six) issues out of which Issue Nos. 3 and 4 relates to the defaulter and bonafide requirement r espectively. Both the sides adduced evidence and the learned trial court at the end of trial decided the Issue No.3 in affirmative but the Issue No.4 was in negative. In the meantime, the original defendant expired and the present petiti oners were substituted as the legal heirs. They challenged the decree by filing T.A. No. 26/06 in the court of Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur and the learned app ellate court vide its judgment and order dated 7.8.07 dismissed the appeal and a lso reversed the findings on Issue No.4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parti es and also perused the materials available before me. The findings regarding defaulter of Issue No.4 is of concurrent findings of facts. That apart, Issue No.3 also relates to the finding of facts and both the issues were decided on the basis of the materials available on record as th ere is no perversity in arriving at the decision in those issues. Accordingly, I do not find that there is any illegality or irregularity in passing the impug ned judgment by the appellate court. At this stage Mr. SarmaBaruah submits that the petitioner are using the suit room for the purpose of business since October, 1975 and he is in possessio n of the same for the last more than 30 years and requires reasonable time to va cate the same. Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlo rd is also heard on this point. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the situation of the case, this revision petition is dispose d of granting 9(nine) months time to vacate the suit premises subject to the following conditions : (1) That within a period of two weeks from to-day the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the learned trial court to the effect that - (a) the petitioner will vacate the suit premises on expiry of nine months re ckoning from 1.3.08, if not made earlier. (b) for this period of nine months the petitioner will go on paying rent @ Rs. 15/- per day till the aforesaid period on monthly basis. (c) The petitioner shall deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the s aid room to the landlord/respondents and shall not part with possession in favou r of any other person. (2) In the event of failing to comply with any of the terms by the petitioner/ tenant mentioned hereinabove, the landlord would be entitled to get the decree executed. This disposes of the revision petition.