1 228 WP.388.06 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 388 OF 2006 Prakash Dnyaneshwar Gaikwad. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Ashok Shankar Bhosale. 2. Siddharth Shankar Bhosale. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Sandesh Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. N.P.Deshpande for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 20 th December, 2011. P.C. 1 After arguing the petition for sometime, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions of the Petitioner who is personally present in the Court, states that the Petitioner is not pressing the present petition on merits. He prays that as the Petitioner has been in possession for considerably long time, longer time of five years to vacate be granted subject to filing usual undertaking. 2 228 WP.388.06 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that this writ petition was ordered to be heard alongwith the companion Civil Revision Application No.221 of 2007 and therefore, the application for additional evidence and additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner in this writ petition will have to be considered even in the revision application. He, therefore, prays that the additional affidavit on record and the civil application filed for bringing on record the subsequent events be considered in the revision application. This request deserves to be accepted inasmuch as the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has argued both the matters by relying upon the said material. 3 As far as the prayer for grant of longer time is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that only a reasonable time be granted. Later on, on instructions, he stated that as far as the grant of time to vacate is concerned, the Respondents have left the matter to this Court. 3 228 WP.388.06 4 The Petitioner is occupying the suit premises consisting of two rooms admeasuring 10' x 10' and 8' x 8' and he has been occupying the suit premises for considerably longer time. It is stated that he is retired from the employment. His present age is 63 years. As the Petitioner is not pressing the petition on merits, the decree for possession shall become final. This writ petition of the year 2006 has reached final hearing, though very old writ petitions right from the year 1990 arising under the Bombay Rent Act are still pending in this Court. The writ petition reached for final hearing only because it was tagged with a revision application of 2007. Considering the aforesaid aspects, time to vacate deserves to be granted till 31 st March, 2015 subject to the Petitioner furnishing usual undertakings. 5 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with no order as to costs ; ii. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition, the decree for possession shall not be 4 228 WP.388.06 executed till the 31 st March, 2015 subject to the Petitioner and all adult members of his family filing usual undertakings in this Court within a period of four weeks from today ; iii. If undertakings are not filed within the stipulated time, the decree for possession shall become forthwith executable ; and iv. Civil Application No.2505 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]