1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C. R. A. NO. 200 OF 2008 Rohini Ashok Bhosale .......Applicant. versus Raghunath Purushottam Joshi & ors......... Respondents. Mr. S. A. Sawant for the Applicant Mr. P.K. Hushing for the Respondent. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 27TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: 1. This Revision is filed by the applicant, unsuccessful tenant, against whom a decree for eviction has been issued by the trial Court which has been confirmed by the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the District Judge. The proceedings for eviction were initiated on the ground of default of payment of rent by the original tenant who happens to be the father-in-law of the present applicant. Default allegedly in payment of rent was with effect from 1-9-1982 till filing of the suit despite notice being served which is dated 24th June 1985 2 demanding the outstanding rent from the tenant under section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. Original tenant though filed a written statement did not dispute the fact of service of notice on him by the land lord. The original tenant did not also contend in the written statement that the rent was inclusive of the taxes. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact against the tenant that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent from 1982 onwards till filing of the suit. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and consideration of the material placed by the respective parties. The view taken by both the Courts below is supported by the evidence and material on record and does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There being no merit, the Revision Application is dismissed. 3. At this stage the learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of the deceased, son of the original tenant and there is no one to support her. It is submitted that she would require reasonable time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel prays for grant of two years time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the respondent landlord opposed the said prayer. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and having regard to the fact that the premises are from Taluka Daund at which place securing tenant 3 premises would not be very difficult. I am inclined to grant six months time to the applicant to vacate the premises subject to the condition that the applicant tenant files an undertaking in this court within a period of three weeks from today that she will not create any third party interest or part with possession of the suit premises. 3. The applicant shall file an undertaking in this court that the applicant would vacate the suit premises on or before expiry of the period of six months from today and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent. The undertaking shall also contain a statement that the applicant would pay the arrears of rent within three months from today. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J.)