-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 433 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9233 OF 2009 M/s. Daga Developes Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant. Versus Tarnicharan D. Mahanty & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. R. D. Soni i/b M/s. Khona & Kayser for the Applicant – original respondent no.1. Mr. R. R. Arolkar for respondent no.1 to 6 – original petitioners. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos. 7 & 8 – original respondent nos. 2 & 3. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : March 15, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. (For the sake of brevity and convenience, hereinafter parties will be referred to by their title in the main petition.) 2. This civil application is preferred by the respondent no.1 for taking on record the undertaking by condoning delay. By the order dated 7th November 2009 this Court disposed of the above writ petition by accepting the statement of respondent no.1 to the effect that he has offered transit accommodation to the petitioners and the same is authorised one. Further statement of respondent no.1 that he is prepared to file an undertaking stating that once the petitioners get shifted their possession shall not be -: 2 :- disturbed till they are shifted to newly constructed/rehabilitation building and that new building will be ready within approximately two years period was also accepted. Respondent no.1 accordingly was directed to file an undertaking within the period of two weeks from the date of the order. In view of the statements made by respondent no.1 the petitioners did not press the petition. 3. Respondent no.1 could not file undertaking within the time stipulated and therefore the present civil application is taken out for extension of time for filing undertaking. Respondent no.1 has annexed to the civil application a copy of the undertaking. Mr. Arolkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the transit accommodations which are being offered by respondent no.1 are not authorised and therefore the undertaking is not in terms of the order dated 7th November 2009. 4. Mr. Arolkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to accept the amount of rent in lieu of the transit accommodations. He submitted that taking into account the size and location of the said premises, the amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards rent will be reasonable one. Mr. Ram Soni, learned counsel for respondent no.1, on instructions of his client, makes a statement that respondent no.1 is ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to each of the petitioners during the transitory period, in lieu of the transit accommodations. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances stated -: 3 :- above, following order is passed. -: O R D E R :- (1) Respondent no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to each of the petitioners during the transitory period in lieu of transit accommodations. Respondent no.1 shall make payment of 11 months rent in advance within the period of three weeks from today. (2) The petitioners shall vacate the premises in their possession and hand over the same to respondent no.1 within the period of four weeks from today. (3) If the petitioners despite receipt of the aforesaid amount do not vacate the suit premises within the stipulated period the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court. (4) Order dated 7th November 2009 stands modified accordingly. (5) Civil Application is disposed of. (R.V. MORE, J.)