1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition NO. 440 OF 2008. (Smt. Leenabai Sadashiv Tupte ..Vs. Smt. Indirabai Ramdas Mahakalkar) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : B. R. Gavai, J. DATED : March 07, 2008. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19/12/2007 vide which the application of the present petitioner in Special Darkhast No. 12 of 2005 objecting to the execution of the Decre came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner is tenant of respondent. The respondent had initiated proceedings of eviction of the petitioner. The decree passed by the trial court was confirmed upto this Court. The appeal was preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in LPA No. 178 of 2006. In the said LPA an application was filed by the present petitioner for grant of 08 weeks time to vacate the premises. This court while disposing of the LPA, granted 8 weeks time on recording an undertaking that the petitioner on or before expiry of 8 weeks shall handover the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. Since the petitioner did not vacate the premises, the 2 respondent was required to proceed further with the execution proceedings which were initiated vide Special Darkhast No.12 of 2005 . In the said proceeding, an application came to be filed by the present petitioner contending therein that the lease in favour of the respondent has been cancelled by the Sub. Divisional Officer and as such she ceased to be the owner of the property in question and as such the decree was not executable. The said application is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3. Advocate Shri Bhutada for the petitioner submits that since the Sub.Divisional Officer has cancelled the Lease Deed, the property stands confiscated to the Government and as such the respondent is no more owner and decree is not executable. He further submits that the Government has already executed the Lease Deed in favour of other three tenants and as such the petitioner also has a chance of getting lease of the land from the Government. 4. As against this, Advocate Shri Mardikar on behalf of respondent submits that the order of S.D.O. Has also been challenged before the Additional Commissioner. He further submits that the stay has been granted by the learned Additional Commissioner vide order dated 3rd May, 2007. He submits that in any event the matter is in between the respondent and the Government and 3 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, She has no right to obstruct the execution of the decree. 5. From the perusal of record, it reveals that in LPA No. 178/2006, the present petitioner has given an unequivocal undertaking which has been recorded by this Court on 10/10/2006 that she will vacate the suit premises within 8 weeks from the date of said order. The said undertaking would have expired at the most by 10/12/2006. The order on which the reliance is sought to be placed by the present petitioner is 12/2/2007 i.e. subsequent to the date on which the present petitioner was liable to vacate the premises in view of undertaking given to this Court. 6. In any event, as to whether the lease of respondent is valid or not is a matter between the respondent and the Government. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, her rights are already concluded by the decree passed against her which has been confirmed upto the appellate stage by this Court. In so far as the contention regarding the grant of lease in favour of other three tenants are concerned, it could be seen that the present respondent had sold the property to those three and that the tenancy was only in favour of petitioner. 7. I do not find it necessary to interfere in the orders passed by the learned trial Court. It is needless to state that in the event if the authorities 4 find that the lease in favour of present respondent is not liable to be continued, the petitioner would be always free to apply to the competent authority for appropriate orders in her favour. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an interim order already operating in favour of the petitioner and therefore, he prays for continuation of the same for a further period of one week. However, taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am not inclined to extend the time as sought for. 9. Petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed. JUDGE /diwale/