1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2245 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 117 OF 2003 Keshavram Tripathi ........Appellant versus M/s. Meherzin Co-op Hsg. Sty. Ltd......... Respondents. Mr. Anoop Sharma adv. for the Appellant Mr. P. S. Dani adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 21st JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The suit filed by the respsondent society for recovery of possession against the appellant has been decreed by the City Civil Court by the impugned judgment. The case of the respondent society was that the society had engaged the services of the appellant as a lift man and thereafter his services were used as office boy, for maintenance for water pump and watch man as well. In the year 1972 the appellant was residing in the lift room on the top floor of the society building. However the same was objected to by the BMC, and the respondent was permitted to build a shed in the compound of the premises of the society. After making the said construction, the appellant has been in occupation of the same. According to the society the 2 appellant was to occupy the said structure so long as he was in the service of the society. The appellant seems to be in the employment of the society till the year 1983 as according to the respondent he had gone to middle east and left the services in the year 1983. The occupation of the appellant has been branded as unauthorised and a suit based on title came to be filed. In the evidence before the court the appellant tried to make out a case that there was agreement between the appellant and the respondent that a sum of Rs.35/- shall be deducted from his salary and would be adjusted as rent/licence fee payable by the appellant to the society. The court below has found that no such plea was raised in the written statement and an attempt was being made to make out a new case. It has also come on record and is reflected from the judgment that in or about the year 1998 the structure which was permitted to be constructed by the respondent for the occupation of the appellant way back in the year 1974 was demolished in the year 1998. Thereafter a new structure was erected at the same place without authority from the society or prior permission of BMC. In these set of facts, the City Civil Court has found the claim for possession made by the respondent to be legal and proper and decreed the suit. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety calling for any interferece with the same. No doubt the appellant and his family has been in occupation of the structure at the said place since 1974, and 3 thus the appellant would be entitled to a reasonable period to vacate the premises. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to obtain instructions from his client about the period for which the appellant desires to retain the premises. S.O. to 21-1-2009. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in occupation of the suit premises since the year 1972-73 and would need two years time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the respondent society has no objection for acceding to the said request made by the appellant provided that appellant files an affidavit in this court that he would on or before expiry of period of two years vacate the premises and handover peaceful and vacant possession thereof to the respondent. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 3. The decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of two years from today subject to the condition that the appellant shall file an affidavit in this court incorporating the above referred undertaking. 4. Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)