: 1 : Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.1016 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.1016 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.1016 OF 2007 IN IN IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1882 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1882 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1882 OF 2007 Amarjeet Singh Niranjan, Deceased, . Thru’ Gurubachan Kaur Bumrah & Ors. ...Appellants V/s. Krishnan Gopi ...Respondent Mr.Aniruddha Joshi with Ms.Sarika Mehra, Advocates, i/b. L.J. Law, for the Appellants. Mr.K.S. Dewal, Advocate, for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. After arguing the Appeal for some time, the learned Counsel for the appellants, on instructions of the appellants, states that the appellants are not pressing the Appeal on merits. However, it is submitted that as appellants are in possession of the suit property for a very long time and are running engineering workshop on the structure erected on the suit property, the appellants be granted time of atleast three years to vacate the suit property in term of the decree subject to filing usual undertaking to vacate the suit property. The said submission is opposed by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-original plaintiff by contending that the : 2 : appellants are not protected by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and therefore now the appellants must vacate the suit property. He opposed the prayer for grant of longer time to vacate. 2. I have considered the submissions. The Appellants have shown willingness to unconditionally withdraw the Appeal and to file an unconditional undertaking to vacate the suit property provided longer time to vacate is granted. If the Appeal is unconditionally withdrawn, the decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court will attain finality. If this Appeal was to remain pending in this Court for final hearing, even by a conservative estimate, the Appeal would not have reached the stage of final hearing for a period of 8 to 10 years. The appellants are in possession for last more than 30 years and are carrying on business in a structure erected on the suit property. Therefore, the prayer made by the appellants deserves to be accepted. Hence, I pass following order:- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" (a). Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. (b). There will be no order as to costs. : 3 : (c). Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Appeal, the decree for possession shall not be executed till 20th January, 2011 subject to condition of the appellants filing in this Court usual undertaking to vacate within a period of four weeks from today. A copy of the undertaking shall be supplied to the Advocate for the respondent in advance. (d). If undertaking is not filed within stipulated period of four weeks, it will be open for the respondent to immediately execute the decree on expiry of the said period of four weeks. (e). Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order. 3. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No.1882 of 2007 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]