1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 595 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 595 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 595 OF 2007 Shri Sunil Sonba Modak & Anr. ... Appellants Versus Somwar Peth Namdeo Shimpi & Ors. Respondents Mr. R.M.Patne, Advocate, i/b. Mr. S.R.Nargolkar,Advocate, for the petitoners. Mr.J.S.Kini,Advocate, for Mr. Suresg Dube for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 8th February,2008. DATE: 8th February,2008. DATE: 8th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-respondent is a Trust and the 2 defendant No.1 who is appellant before this Court was a tenant in the suit premises. The Trust has a temple and 4 rooms. Three Rooms are occupied by the Trust for different office purposes and one room was let out to the defendant no.1 for the purpose of running a chemist store. The plaintiff filed suit no.153 of 2002 seeking decree of eviction on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the defendant No.1 was not using premises for more than 6 months for the purpose for which it was let out and that he had sub-let the premises to defendant No.2, who is applicant NO.2 before this Court. It was also contended that he was defaulter in payment of the rents and the Trust also reasonably and bonafide requires the suit premises for the purpose of keeping its own record. Several other grounds were taken but they need not be considered here. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding against the defendants on all these points and the suit for eviction has been decreed. The learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. 3. Therefore, the Revision Application stands rejected. 3 4. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the applicant makes a request that six months’ time maybe granted to the applicant No.1 to vacate the premises as it is used for business purpose. The learned Counsel for the respondent leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court. Therefore, the decree for eviction shall not be executed for six months from this date subject to the applicant nos. 1 and 2 both filing undertaking before this Court within 2 weeks to the effect that they shall vacate the premises and shall put the plaintiff in peaceful possession of the same without any objection or obstruction within 6 months from this date. The applicant NO.1 shall also clear all the dues within 4 weeks from this date. If the applicants fail to submit undertaking to the above effect within the stipulated period or fail to pay the arrears of rent within the stipulated period, the plaintiff-respondent may execute decree any time. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)