cra189-09.sxw 1 spb THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 189 OF 2009 Tandra Madhusudan Rao ...Applicant/ Petitioner. V/s. Sartaj Narain Kaul & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. S.M. Gorwardkar for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. --- CORAM:- G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATED :- 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1 A Decree for possession has been passed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement by the Trial Court and the same has been confirmed of the Appellate Court. The Applicant and Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are the heirs of original Defendant No.1 and Tenant. After arguing the Revision Application at length on 28.9.2011, it was adjourned today since the Applicant wanted to discuss and take instruction from her real sister Respondent No.9 -Seema who stays in USA and Respondent Nos. 10 Reena who stays in Delhi. Today, the Applicant has tendered an Affidavit-Cum-Undertaking, which is taken on record and marked `X’ for identification. The undertaking is accepted. On instructions from the cra189-09.sxw 2 Applicant who is present-in-person in the Court, Mr. Gorwadkar, Advocate, states that this Civil Revision Application will not be pressed if time to vacate the suit premises is granted till 30th September, 2013. The prayer is reasonable, particularly because the need of Plaintiff No.2 is accepted who is personally working in Muscat. It is, however, necessary to protect the interest of the original Plaintiff by directing that apart from the Applicant, the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 will also file similar written undertaking, save and except clause 3 since the Applicant will alone pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- per month which is adhoc compensation. Hence, I pass the following order : i Civil Revision Application is dismissed as not pressed. ii Time to vacate the suit premises is granted till 30th September, 2013. Undertaking filed by the Applicant is accepted. iii The Applicant is constituted Attorney of Respondent Nos. 9 and 10. However, individual undertaking of Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 will he filed on or before 30th November, 2011. iv The Decree for possession and mesne profit is not cra189-09.sxw 3 disturbed on account of the fact that the CRA is not pressed. It is clarified that the figure of Rs.10,000/- per month is a adhoc figure and will not determining the mesne profit. None of the parties will rely on this figure and the Trial Court will not be influenced by the said figure in either manner and will decide the quantum of mesne profit on its own merits on the basis of the evidence which may be laid by the parties in that regard. All the contentions in that regard are kept open and the Trial Court will be free to determine the quantum of mesne profit which will be either less or more than the aforesaid fiture. v List the CRA for direction on 5th December, 2011 regarding compliance of the order for filing of undertaking by the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10. [G. S. GODBOLE, J.]