: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.370 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.370 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.370 OF 2007 Harbhajansingh Santoksingh Rajpur ...Applicant. V/s. Shri Bholadaji Mandir & Ors. ...Respondents. Shri P.B.Shah, adv. for the Applicant. Smt. Shrvani Shailada for Mr.P.S.Dani, advs. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 18th January, 2008. DATE : 18th January, 2008. DATE : 18th January, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 is the landlord, who had filed the suit for eviction against the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 Tarabai, who was tenant and defendant no.2 Santok Singh, who was inducted as subtenant by the respondent no.2. Defendant no.1 did not file any written statement. Only the defendant no.2 Santok Singh contested the suit and denied the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. He also contended that for about 32 years, he was living in the suit premises as tenant of the defendant no.1. The Courts below accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 had illegally and without any consent of : 2 : the landlord had inducted the subtenant and on that ground, decree for eviction came to be passed. Appeal was preferred by the defendant no.2. Appeal was also dismissed. Revision Application is filed by the legal heirs of the defendant no.2 Santok Singh. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants and their father were in occupation of the suit premises since prior to 1975 and, therefore, the suit, which was filed in the year 1994 was barred by the limitation. After perusal of the written statement, I find that no such plea of limitation was taken and, therefore, question of limitation could not be taken into consideration by the Courts below. I find no substance in the present revision application. 4. Revision application stands dismissed. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the revision applicants makes a statement that applicants shall vacate the premises within six months and shall file undertaking to that effect before this Court within two weeks from this day. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has nothing to say on this point. : 3 : Therefore, subject to the revision applicants filing undertaking before this Court within two weeks from this day that they shall vacate the premises within six months from this day without any obstruction and that they shall not create and third party interest, the decree for eviction shall not be executed for a period of six months from this day. In case of failure to file such undertaking, within stipulated period, the decree may be executed. (J.H.Bhatia,J.) (J.H.Bhatia,J.) (J.H.Bhatia,J.)