AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Heard Sri Sharathkumar Shetty, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Parashuram, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
The petitioners are the tenants in the property owned by respondent Nos.2 and 3, which is the subject matter of mortgage with respondent No.1. The petitioners - tenants and the lease being in subsistence, this Court had directed the petitioners to file an affidavit of undertaking with regard to the timeline by which the premises would be vacated, which is now in the possession of respondent No.1 - the bank.
The petitioners have filed the affidavit, which reads as follows:
“1. We submit that we are the Petitioner in the above case, and we acquainted with the facts of the case, hence we swearing to this affidavit.
We submit that we are the tenants under respondent No.2 and 3 and the 1st Respondent has trying to dispossess our possession, hence we approach this Hon'ble court and matter posted on 25.03.2025 and this Hon'ble Court directed me to file undertaking affidavit, hence this affidavit.
We submit that the Respondent No.2 and 3 undertook to clear the dispute with Respondent No.1 and as per the assurance we are in possession and if the Respondent No.2 and 3 not clear the dispute we will vacate the premises within three months from today.
We declare that this is our Name signature and swear to these contents of this Affidavit.”
The petitioners have sought 3 months time to vacate the premises, which is unreasonable. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant 8 weeks from today to the petitioners to vacate the premises.
It is made clear that the petitioners shall not file any application before this Court seeking extension of time and they shall vacate the premises as directed, within 8 weeks from today.
With these observations and directions, the petition stands disposed.
Ordered accordingly.