Chandka 1 WP-L-796-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 796 OF 2011 Pankaj Dinesh Chitroda ..Petitioner versus Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. C. Naidu with Mr. P. Y. Shankar for Petitioner. Mr. Fredun Devitre, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yashesh V. Pajwani i/b. Mr. Y. R. Naik for Respondent No. 1. Mr. G. W. Matoos, AGP, for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni with Mr. Atul Damle, Ms. Swati Sagvekar and Mr. Sandesh Shukla i/b. Legasis Partners for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 05 May 2011. P.C. : At the hearing of the Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that the Petitioner as well as all the persons on whose behalf the Petition has been filed and whose names are set out in Exhibit ‘A’ do not wish to press the Petition on merits but only seek an extension of time to vacate the premises. Considering the fact that an extension of time has already been granted on an undertaking filed before this Court to vacate Chandka 2 WP-L-796-11 the premises by 20 April 2011 we would not have been inclined to entertain the request. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Third Respondent states that the Third Respondent is agreeable to a last and final extension of time to vacate the premises by a further period of four weeks from today subject to an undertaking being filed within a week from today. Accordingly subject to an undertaking being filed to the effect that vacant and peaceful possession shall be handed over no later than by 2 June 2011, we grant an extension of time until that date. The extension of time by this Order has been granted on the clear understanding that no further extension shall be granted. It is however made clear that in the event that no undertaking is filed by the Petitioners, they would be subject to steps being taken in accordance with law. 2. The Developer has stated through learned counsel that the cheques for monthly compensation in lieu of transit accommodation have already been deposited with MHADA, which the Petitioners would be at liberty to collect. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has stated before the Court that the Petitioners do not require transit accommodation from the Developer and that they would make their own alternate arrangement until the permanent accommodation is made available. Chandka 3 WP-L-796-11 3. The Petition is accordingly disposed of since no other point is pressed. (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)