1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.497 OF 2009 Shah Thakarai Devashi & ors ..Applicants V/s. Ramchandra Hindurao Sawant ..Respondent Mr.S.D.Dharmadhikari, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.S.S.Patwardhan with Mr.C.G.Patil, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 30TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned Civil Judge and the Principal District Judge holding that the Applicants had not been using the premises which had been let to the Applicants for a continuous period of six months immediately before filing the suit without any reasonable cause. The claim of the Applicants that they were running some business in these premises is supported by the 2 evidence of one Balasaheb Ananda Chougule, who claimed to have purchased a Water Pump set from the Applicants shop on 28 th November, 1998. This evidence is outweighed by the other evidence which shows that electricity connection to the Applicants shop had been disconnected and the Applicants had not taken any steps to have it restored for long time. The best evidence the Applicants could have produced is books of Account and Cash books which could have proved that they were running business in the premises. One incident of sale of one pump set could as well be cooked up and therefore, the Courts below have rightly held that the Applicants failed to prove that they were using the premises and that the Respondent Landord had proved that the premises were not in use without any reasonable cause. The learned Counsel for the Applicants next submitted that the learned Trial Judge had come to hold that only Defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 were partners of 3 the firm and decree could be restricted only to those persons. The Applicants need not be subjected to the decree passed by the District Court. Now it is true that the learned Judge has recorded such findings. But the Applicants claimed that they are partners of the firm and firm was a tenant, and to prevent any mischief by others, the decree passed need not be interfered at this stage. The learned Counsel for the Applicants states that the Applicants may be given three years time in order to vacate since they were conducting the business in the premises since long. This is opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-landlord. However, since execution of decree itself may take lot of time, and to avoid complications, the Applicants may be given six months time to vacate on their furnishing undertaking on oath before this Court within a period of four weeks to vacate the premises on or before 31st December, 2010. It is made clear that if the Applicants fail 4 to furnish the undertaking before 28th July, 2010, the decree may be put to execution promptly by the executing Court. The Applicants are also put to notice that any breach of undertaking i. e. failure to vacate the premises will, in addition to consequences which may follow from execution of decree, make them liable for wilful disobedience of Order of this Court. The Applicants shall also state in the undertaking on oath that they will not create any third party interest and will not induct third person in the premises. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)