dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CAW CAW CAW NO.2593 OF 2008 NO.2593 OF 2008 NO.2593 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7393 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7393 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7393 OF 2008 DENA BANK Applicant (Orig. Defendant) Vs. 1. Dr.Ahmed Ibrahim Khatri & ors. Respondents. (Orig.Plaintiffs) Mr.A.K.Abhyankar,Sr.Advocate with Mr.A.G.Dambe i/by M/s.Shukla & Shukla for the Petitioner. Mr.M.L.Palan i/by Mr.M.K.Khatri for the Respondent no.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th November, 2008. : 11th November, 2008. : 11th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioners have moved this application for extension of time to vacate the premises as ordered on 26th September 2008 while dismissing the writ petition filed by the applicant/petitioner against the eviction decree. The court has observed in paragraph 8 as under: "8. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of the operation of the decree to enable the petitioner to take the matter in Appeal. As the request is reasonable one, although it is opposed by the respondents, it is ordered that the impugned decree shall not be given effect to till 14th November, 2008 subject to filing usual undertaking in this court within two weeks from today and depositing arrears, if any." 2. The petitioners, however, for various reasons as ( 2 ) recorded in the application unable to vacate the said premises. They have not filed even undertaking within two weeks. They have taken out this application therefore to vacate the premises. They are taking all steps to take alternative premises. They being established Bank and are in possession of the suit premises for the last 50 years, they need more time. The statement is made that they have already searched the premises and they are in the process of acquiring the same. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord basically opposed this application that inspite of decree, they are delaying to vacate the premises. However, even if they want the premises, it should be on strict condition including the substantial amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to be paid as use and occupation charges till they vacate the premises, apart from usual undertaking which they should file within two weeks. 4. In view of this, I am inclined to grant this extension as under: (a) Time to vacate the premises is granted ( 3 ) till 30.4.2009. (b) The applicant/petitioner to file affidavit and usual undertaking within two weeks from today. (c) The applicant/petitioner to pay compensation/ use and occupation charges from 1.11.2008 till 30.4.2009 at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) per month without any default directly to respondent no.1/landlord. The same will be paid in first week of every month. The charges for this month i.e. for November 2008 will be paid within one week from today. This is without prejudice to the rights of both the parties. (d) Any single default of above shall make the order dated 26.09.2008 operative. In case of default, the respondent/landlord is at liberty to take all steps to get the possession of the premises. 5. The application is allowed accordingly in the above terms. ( 4 ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)