1 (CAW 375 of 2011 in WP 9810 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.375 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9810 OF 2010 Vijay Jagad and Ors. ...Applicants/ Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Jitendra Patil for Applicants /Petitioners Mr.Rajesh Kachare a/w Mr. Tushare Dahibhavkar i/b. M/s. Dahibhavkar & Co. for Respondent 6 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that further time may be given in respect of the three residential premises and secondly, it is submitted that he is offering the keys of the commercial premises of the Petitioner Nos.1 and 5. 2. This is, however, opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6. It is submitted that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 5 have written a letter to the Respondents stating therein that there is a scrap worth Rs.65,000/- in the premises and should pay that amount to the Petitioners. It is submitted that, 2 (CAW 375 of 2011 in WP 9810 of 2010) therefore, after giving undertaking to this Court they would vacate the premises after expiry of the said period, now further conditions are being imposed by the Petitioners. Secondly, so far as the other residential premises are concerned, it is submitted that leave and licence agreement has been executed by the Petitioner No.4. He has handed over the copy of the leave and licence agreement which is at page 5 to the compilation. 3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, therefore, it is apparent that the Petitioners are trying to mislead this Court and are seeking further time. No further time is granted to the Petitioners. The Respondents may take forcible possession of the said premises. Authorities to act on the copy of this order. Civil application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)