IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1984 of 2009 Smt. Kamlesh @ Kamla Devi and four others … Petitioners. Versus Mohan Lal S/O Late Bansidhar, R/O 276 L, Garh Cantt. Dehradun. … Respondent. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants. Mr. Lokpal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date May 05, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Time Extension Application MCC No. 287 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this application (No. 287 of 2010) the petitioners are seeking further two weeks’ time to file the undertaking before the Prescribed Authority. In this writ petition, (WPMS No. 1984 of 2009 Smt. Kamlesh @ Kamla Devi and others Vs. Mohan Lal), the order dated 24-12-2009 was passed by this Court to the following effect:- “The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. However, the petitioners are granted one year’s time to vacate the disputed shop and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to othe respondent before the expiry of the said period, provided the petitioners furnish a written undertaking to that effect before the Prescribed Authority within a period of eight weeks from today. In case no undertaking is furnished by the petitioners, as directed above, the landlord-respondent would be at liberty to get the disputed shop vacated through Court in accordance with law.” The petitioners assailed the above order passed by this Court before the Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 8513 of 2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 26-4-2010. According to the applicants, the petitioner no. 1, who was contesting the petition and had to file the undertaking before the Prescribed Authority, suddenly fell ill and she was suffering 2 from cardiac asthma with hypertension and R. Arthritis. She remained under treatment since 6.3.2010 to 25.4.2010. The medical certificates have been annexed to the application. This fact is not disputed that the petitioners have not filed undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within the stipulated period, rather they chose to prefer Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court to assail the order dated 243-12-2009. The order was well within the knowledge of the petitioners. So far as the time of one year granted by this Court is concerned, this Court after considering the hardship of the petitioners, as the accommodation is a commercial one i.e. a shop, granted one year’s time to vacate the shop, subject to filing of undertaking before the Prescribed Authority before a period of eight weeks from the date of order. For want of undertaking by the petitioners, the said order now has to come to an end. By means of this application, the petitioner has sought further time to vacate the premises. Considering the hardship of the petitioners, further time is granted to them to vacate the disputed shop upto 15th October, 2010, provided all the petitioners furnish written undertaking within a period of ten days from today before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that they will vacate the disputed shop and deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent-landlord before the expiry of 15-10-2010. If the undertaking, as above, is not filed within a period of ten days before the Prescribed Authority, this order of extension of time shall automatically come to an end and the Prescribed Authority would be at liberty to execute the order of ejectment in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Time Extension Application No. 287 of 2010 is partly allowed. The earlier order dated 24-12-2009 passed by this Court stands modified to the above extent. ( B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 3