1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1953 OF 2008 Smt.Kanta Kapoor & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Smt.Rajkumari T. Gund & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.M.S.Kadu for petitioner Mr.B.A.Singh for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th March 2008 P.C. . This petition challenges an order passed by the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai in Appeal No.666 of 2003 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.1018/2010 of 1997. The petitioners are the original 2 defendants whereas the respondents are original plaintiffs. The suit is for possession of the suit premises. The suit premises are Block No.92, Room No.5, Agra Road, Mulund Colony, Mulund West, Mumbai. 2. Mr.Kadu appearing for petitioners submits that petitioner No.6 is residing in the suit premises and considering the fact that the suit has been decreed, if a longer time is granted, the petitioner No.6 would not press this petition. Other petitioners do not wish to challenge the decree for possession of the suit premises. 3. Petitioner No.6, Krishna Kapoor is son of deceased Dinanath and he is residing in the suit premises. In the light of the statement made by Mr.Kadu, the petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, upon petitioner No.6 executing an 3 undertaking in this Court within fifteen days from today, it is directed that the decree shall not be executed and enforced till 31st March 2009. The undertaking should be in following terms:- ". that the petitioner is occupying the suit premises along with his family members and that he will not induct any third party or create any third party rights in the suit premises; that he will not part with the possession of the suit premises and that he will give vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises on 31st March 2009 and that the petitioner shall pay rent/compensation till the date he vacates the premises" 4. In default of filing of the undertaking, decree shall become executable forthwith. Upon 4 the undertaking being filed, in the event of default in compliance with the terms thereof, the petitioner would be liable to be evicted. If Petitioner No.6 complies with the terms and conditions, then, the decree not to be executed till 31st March 2009. 5. The above order is passed in the light of the specific statement by Mr.Kadu that save and except petitioner No.6 and his family, none others are residing in the suit premises. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)