HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL MCC REVIEW / RECALL APPLICATION NO. 458 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION NO. 3 OF 2008 Senior Superintendent of Post, Nainital & others. ..….Defendant/Revisionists. Versus Smt. Sarita Sarraf. …….Plaintiff/Respondent. Dated: 6.5.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, counsel for the respondents. 2. Present application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 11.1.2008. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the review application are quoted below: “7. That the applicant may kindly be given opportunity to negotiate with the landlady on the point of rent. The land lady demanded rent Rs. 4308/- per month in her original application no. 15.12.2003 and 26.10.2004. The applicant is ready to pay the rent if the landlady is ready to register lease deed for a further period of 5 years. 8. That if the negotiation is not possible, then the applicant may be allowed one year time to vacate the premises. The applicant is in search of suitable building in the locality and Executive Officer Municipal Board Haldwani, and S.D.M. Haldwani has been addressed to extend help, so that the 2 possibility of closure of post office in Bhotia Parao do not arises and services to the public remain continue in the area.” 3. The suit had been filed on the ground that U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the building in dispute as the rent was Rs. 3,000/- per month. 4. Counsel for the revisionist has prayed for modification in view of Paragraph 8 of the review application in place of recall of the order dated 11.1.2008. 5. Therefore, the review application is dismissed. 6. However, the revisionist has prayed for extension of time for vacating the premises as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the application. 7. In view of the aforesaid prayer, the revisionist is permitted to vacate the premises in question by 31st December, 2008 provided the undertaking is furnished by 30th May, 2008 and the entire decreetal amount is deposited by 30th May, 2008. Rest of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 14 of the judgment shall remain same. The conditions no. 1 and 2 of the judgment dated 11.1.2008 is modified to this extent. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 6.5.2008 Rathour