1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4510 OF 2008 (Shri Gyanchand Ramnarayan Jais vs. Shri Bhagwan Nagoji Makade) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 11, 2008. On 24.10.2008, after hearing parties, the matter was adjourned to find out whether the petitioner was ready and willing to vacate the premises within a reasonable time. Today upon instructions, Shri Ghodeswar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner should be given time till 30.6.2009 to vacate the premises as the petitioner is having a commercial establishment i.e. shop in the tenanted premises, which is the only source of his livelihood. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent – landlord strongly opposes grant of time till June 2009 and he states that time of three months at the most should be given. In the circumstances, considering the fact that the present proceedings were filed by the respondent – landlord in 2004 and the petitioner is having his shop in the tenanted premises, I am 2 inclined to grant time till 30th June 2009. However, it is subject to filing undertaking before this Court by 20.11.2008 that he shall hand over the vacant possession of tenanted premises to the respondent – landlord by 30.06.2009 and he shall clear all monetary part flowing from the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2008 delivered by the Second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, in RCS No. 98 of 2004, before that date. The undertaking should also specify that the petitioner shall continue to pay current rent as occupation charges till 30.06.2009. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel has pointed out that S.D. No. 66 of 2007 for recovery of decretal amount of Rs.58,945/- is already pending against the petitioner. Shri Ghodeswar, learned counsel contends that amount in excess is already recovered by the respondent – landlord in said matter. I find that said dispute is an independent dispute as the said S.D. arises out of the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1995 in Civil Suit No. 111 of 1994. The Competent Court can look into that controversy and pass appropriate orders in it and the respondent – landlord is free to recover the amount, if any, as per that order. The present proceedings 3 need not be kept pending or need not wait decision of S.D. No.66 of 2007. If the undertaking as mentioned above is not filed by 20.11.2008, the judgment and decree delivered by the Court below on 08.01.2008 shall become available for execution to present respondent and the respondent shall be free to proceed to obtain possession in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in these terms. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.