1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Letters Patent Appeal No. 195 of 2010 In WP No. 518 of 2010 Ajabrao v. Keshav -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Shir M.D. Samel, Adv for appellant Shri G.N. Khanzode, Adv for respondent Coram : S.A. Bobde and P.D. Kode, JJ Dated : 16th April 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge upholding concurrent findings of the two Courts below directing eviction of the appellant from the suit shop-block. 2. Shri Samel argued that finding of the learned single Judge that there is no evidence to show that the premises have been let out by respondent-landlord after the institution of Rent Control proceedings, is not warranted being contrary to record. According to Shri Samel, there is evidence to the effect that the respondent-landlord has given portion of his premises for starting a beauti saloon. We, however, find from the evidence 2 referred to by Shri Samel that the respondent-landlord has admitted that due to financial stringency, he has enclosed portion of the porch and allowed his daughter-in-law to run beauti saloon. This does not amount to letting out the premises nor can it be said that the respondent-landlord obtained vacant possession of any premises and let out the same instead of occupying it himself. 3. In the circumstances, we see no merit in the appeal. We are of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed which we hereby do. 4. Shri Samel, learned counsel for the appellant-tenant submitted that the appellant is agreeable for giving an undertaking that he will vacate the premises within some time so that the decree need not be executed. We have heard Shri Khanzode, learned counsel for respondent-landlord on this aspect. 5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and particularly, age of the appellant-tenant who is 79 years old, we are of the view that the appellant shall file an undertaking in this Court to the following effect : (i). That, he shall vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises to respondent-landlord within a period of eight months from today. (ii). He shall clear all arrears of rent, charges etc. payable to the respondent-landlord within the said period. (iii). He shall not induct any person or create any third- 3 party right during the aforesaid. 6. If such an undertaking is filed within a period of fifteen days from today, respondent-landlord shall not execute decree during the period referred to in the undertaking. Appeal dismissed with the above direction. Judge. Judge. hsj