1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2009 Ashok Gunaji Dharampurkar ........Appellant versus Arvind Vidyadhar Narkar ........ Respondent. Mr. Suresh Bhosale adv. for the Appellant Mr. a.P. Pande adv. for the respondent CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court allowing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for ejectment and possession against the present appellant. The suit premises are not governed by any rent Act but the lease is regulated by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. After serving notice, respondent terminated the tenancy from the end of the tenancy month, and thereafter instituted the suit. The decree passed by the trial court has been confirmed in appeal by dismissal of the first appeal filed by the present appellant. Hene this second appeal. 2. The appellant had engaged a lawyer. However after filing of the written statement, the appellant cross examined the 2 respondent/plaintiff in person and closed his case. The appellant has not led any evidence. 3. Perused the impugned judgment . The same does not call for any interference. No substantial question of law emerges for adjudication. There being no merit, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in occupation of the premises, since last about more than 40 years. The appellant is stated to be carying on business in the premises and hence it is prayed that the appellant be granted reasonable time to vacate as otherwise the appellant will be put to suffer undue hardship and inconvenience. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed granting time to the appellant to vacate the premises. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances I deem it appropriate to pass the following order in the interest of justice. 5. The second appeal stands dismissed. However the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of two years from today subject to the condition that the appellant files an undertaking in this court within a period of one week from today stating therein that the appellant would hand over peaceful and vacant possesison of the suit premises to the resposndent on or before expiry of the peirod of two years from today. The undertaking shall further state that no other person would be 3 inducted in the suit premises and that the appellant would pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.175/- per month from today onwards regularly till the expiry of the peirod of two years. It is made clear that the parties may have take recourse to the legal remedies in regard to the arrears of rent. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)