1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4022 OF 2006 (Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others .v. Shri Laxmidevi Mithmal Poddar Smruti Bhawan Trust and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri G.E. Moharir, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents though duly served. This is the tenant's petition under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The decree of eviction is granted in favour of the respondent/landlord on the ground of default, by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The only point raised by Shri Moharir, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that under the lease agreement, three months' notice is required to be given to terminate the tenancy. However, the respondents gave notice of one and half months which is not in accordance with agreement. Shri 2 Moharir, the learned Counsel relied upon clause 17 of the lease agreement in this regard executed between the parties to the petition for the period between 01.04.1992 and 31.03.1995. The perusal of the Clause 17 reveals that three months' notice in advance is necessary if the licensor wants to terminate the agreement and revoke the leave and license even before the expiry of the stipulated period in the agreement. There is no dispute that the period stipulated in agreement i.e. 1992 to 1995 is already expired and thereafter the notice of termination of the tenancy was given on 14th March, 2002. In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in the absence of three months' notice, eviction decree cannot be passed. Both the lower Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent/landlord is entitled to decree of possession on the ground of default. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Shri G.E. Moharir, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, seeks some time to vacate the suit premises. The petitioners are in possession of the suit 3 property since the year 1992. Therefore, in my opinion, in the interest of justice, some breathing time deserves to be granted to vacate the suit premises. The petitioners are, therefore, granted four months' time to vacate the suit premises, subject to filing usual undertaking in this Court till 26th March, 2008. JUDGE *rrg.