S.N. Khatri, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the original defendants-tenants.
2. The 1st respondent is the daughter of the 2nd respondent. The former, hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, has been working as an Assistant Pathologist in Tata Memorial Centre, Bombay, since August 1975. She and her mother (2nd respondent) brought a suit in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, in June 1977 for eviction of the petitioners on two grounds under sections 13(1)(g) and 13-A2 of the Bombay Rent Act (hereafter 'the Act'). The premises involved are a flat on the 1st floor of 'Amalfi', Napean Road, Bombay. The 1st petitioners are a public limited company (hereinafter for short, 'the company'). The 2nd respondent is their Managing Director. Admittedly under an Agreement of Leave and License dated 22nd April, 1971, the suit flat along with a garage was granted by the plaintiff and her mother to the Company for a period of three years from 16th March, 1971 to 15th March, 1974. The Agreement was executed by the 2nd petitioner on behalf of the Company. There is no dispute that the flat was taken for his occupation. As the License was admittedly subsisting on 1st of February, 1973, the Company became deemed tenant under section 15-A of the Act. The 3rd and the 4th petitioners are Officers of the Company. During the pendency of the eviction suit the 2nd petitioner left the premises for good. Thereafter the 3rd and the 4th petitioners came to be inducted therein by the Company in succession. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff had obtained a Certificate dated 29th March, 1977 from the Director of the Department of Atomic Energy, Bombay, that she was holding a Scientific Post in the Tata Memorial Centre which was an aided institution within the meaning of Explanation 1 to section 13-A2, and that she did not possess any other suitable residence in the local area where she or the members of her family could reside. The petitioners challenged both grounds of eviction. The trial Court decreed the suit on both grounds. The appeal taken by the petitioners to a Bench of two Judges of the same Court, came to be summarily dismissed. The learned Judges have recorded an exhaustive reasoned order running into 36 pages. Both Courts have thus held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession not only under section 13-bA2 but also under section 13(1)(g) of the Act. While upholding the latter ground they have also recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff on the question of comparative hardship. It is this decision which is now the subject-matter of challenge before me.
3. Shri Dalvi for the petitioners has raised a preliminary question that the Appellate Bench went wrong in dismissing the appeal summarily, when a number of triable issues had arisen for their consideration. He contends that the Appellate Bench should have admitted the appeal and that it has omitted to do so, the finding recorded by them are in excess of their jurisdiction. He requests that the matter be remitted back to that Court on this single ground, for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law after duly admitting it. He relies on two decisions of the Supreme Court : AIR1972SC1932 , Madhav v. Sugandha and : AIR1973SC218 , Umakanth v. Parshuram. He also draws on a Single Judge decision of the Karnatak High Court reported in A.I.R. 1970 Mysore 138, Smt. Nillelawwa v. Smt. Chinanwa.
4. It is true that in the two Supreme Court decisions that Court has observed that an appeal raising triable issues should not be summarily dismissed. I am however, clear that the aforesaid observations were made in the particular context of the cases and these decisions are distinguishable on facts. In both these matters, decisions of the Bombay High Court in First Appeals were under attack before the Supreme Court. This Court had summarily dismissed the two appeals by recording a single word order 'dismissed'. No reasons whatever were indicated by a speaking order for rejecting the appeals summarily under Order 41, Rule 11, C.P.C. The appellants moved the Supreme Court under Article 136. In that peculiar situation the Supreme Court disapproved of the persistent practice of this Court of dismissing First appeals summarily without giving any indication to its mind as to the reasons which had induced it to dismiss the appeals summarily. In the matter before me, the Appellate Bench has recorded a speaking order running into 36 pages, dealing with each and every point raised by the petitioners and rejecting all of them for sound reasons. There is thus qualitative distinction between the situation obtaining in the two matters before the Supreme Court and the one before me.
5. The reasons why the Supreme Court has time and again disapproved of the aforesaid practice of the Bombay High Court are not far to seek. These are mainly two. First, an appellant has a right to know the reasons why his appeal deserved an adverse summary disposal. Second and perhaps the more important one-in-absence of a speaking order of the High Court in an appeal which involves serious triable issues, the Supreme Court is handicapped and or embarrassed in properly exercising its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.
6. A study of a few earlier Supreme Court decisions vividly brings forth the aforesaid two reasons. In : 1976CriLJ1546 Munir Sayed v. State of Maharashtra, this Court had dismissed a Criminal Appeal summarily by the usual one word order 'dismissed' under section 421 of the old Criminal Code of 1898. Beg, J., (as he then was) was provoked to make the following observations in paragraph 2 of the judgment :
'2. There is a whole catena of cases which have come here from the Bombay High Court in which this Court has consistently disapproved of the practice followed by the Bombay High Court of not giving reasons when exercising its power of summary dismissal of criminal appeals which lie both on questions of fact and law. In other High Courts, such appeals are automatically admitted. In any case, it is not possible for this Court to exercise its powers satisfactorily without giving an appellant, who may have an arguable case an opportunity of first presenting his case to the High Court and getting a decision from it.'
7. The Supreme Court has referred to four earlier decisions reported in : [1953]4SCR809 Mushtak Hussain v. State of Bombay; : [1973]3SCR670 Mushtak Ahmed v. State of Gujarat; : 1973CriLJ284 Kapoorchand v. State of Maharashtra, and : 1974CriLJ330 Krishna v. State of Maharashtra. In all these decisions stress is laid on the two reasons adverted to by me in paragraph 5 supra. As early as in 1953 Mahajan, J., (as he then was) had the following to advise this Court in para 9 of this judgment :
'.......with great respect we are however, constrained to observe that it was not right for the High Court to have dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant to that Court summarily, as it certainly raised some arguable points which required consideration though we have not thought it fit to deal with all of them. In case which prima facie raise no arguable issue that course is, of course, justified, but this Court would appreciate it if in arguable cases the summary rejection order gives some indication of the view of the High Court on the points raised. Without the opinion of the High Court on such points in special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution this Court sometimes feels embarrassed if it has to deal with those matters without the benefit of that opinion.'
8. I need not repeat the relevant observations from the remaining decisions. Suffice it to say, the disapproval of the Supreme Court is not to the disposal of First Appeals raising triable or serious issues by the procedure prescribed under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C. or under section 384 Cri.P.C., but to the practice of disposing of them by a single work 'dismissed' or 'rejected' without giving a speaking order or without sending for the record. I do not accept the proposition of Shri Dalvi formulated in unbridled terms that in every appeal raising triable issues the Court has no option whatever but to admit it and issue notice to the other side. It is common knowledge that once an appeal is admitted, it takes 8-10 years for disposal. It is again common knowledge that a very high percentage of such disposals are by way of dismissal. Once an appeal is admitted, grant of interim relief follows as a matter of course-I have no quarrel on this count-in favour of the party who is in most cases ultimately to lose. Meanwhile he rides high and the party having justice on his side has to lie low, patiently waiting for the day of reckoning in a spirit of resignation and surrender. Now if a Judge-incidentally in the Small Cause Court, a Bench of two Judges hearing appeals-who possesses the requisite amount of competence, confidence are sagacity to give a full hears to the appellant in order to enable him to present all his submissions, honestly feels that he does not need any assistance from the other side and decides that he must dismiss the appeal summarily, he will be perfectly justified in doing so. Of course, he will have to comply with all the mandates of law. He will have to hand down a reasoned speaking law, which will not be a mere apology for a judgment, but will deal with all aspects raised by the appellant. The Judge will be bound to send for the record where substantial evidence has been produced by parties in the trial Court, peruse it and reappreciate evidence afresh at his own level. Having done all this, if the Appellate Court in its wisdom chooses to dismiss the appeal summarily by a full reasoned order without calling upon the respondent to impose his unwanted assistance on the Court, I for one, would not discourage the Court in its pursuit. Indeed, I will commend such a Judge for the course adopted by him.
9. I wonder if I am right in taking this liberty of distressing a little more on the subject. It is painful to note that of late, the average span of one round of litigation from the lowest forum upto the High Court ranges anywhere between 16 to 20 years. There is no reasonable guarantee that this one round will bring the litigation to its end. In most cases, second round-nay, even a third- is more than likely to follow. The result is that only exceptionally fortunate parties have the chance to know their final fate during their own life time. More often it falls to the lot of their heirs --- or the heirs of the heirs---to see and suffer the final day of reckoning dawn. If this distressing state of judicial administration is not arrested soon the day is not far off when, in order to avoid confusion, we will be compelled to coin abbreviation for denoting successive series of legal representatives by expressions like L.Rs. L.Rs.2, L.Rs.s etc. (full forms being original L.Rs. L.Rs. decimated to the 2nd series, third series etc.). I am not here to identify all the causes of the malaise. I, however, do believe that judicious exercise of powers---I repeat the qualification `judicious'---under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C. or under section 384 Cri.P.C. to the maximum extent permissible under the statutes and the Supreme Court pronouncements, is one of the most effective remedies for curtailing agonising uncertainty, unconscionable delays and crippling costs generated by the extent modalities of dispensing justice. I do not dilate further.
10. Nillawwa's case decided by the Karnataka High Court is again distinguishable on facts. In that case although the Appellate Court recorded a speaking order, it did not call for the record and proceedings, or go through the same. This omission on the part of the Appellate Court was definitely prejudicial to the just decision of the matter. In the circumstances, the High Court was-I say so with respect-justified in remanding the matter. I leave this ruling here.
11. As already indicated above, in the matter before me, the Appellate Bench which consisted of two Judges went through the record of the case and recorded an exhaustive speaking order dealing with each and every point raised by the petitioners. I must say to the credit of Judge Jamdar who has written the judgment in appeal and trial Judge Thakkar that their judgments are really refreshing. In the exhaustive submission made before me, I did not come across any substantial point which was not raised before the Appellate Judges, except perhaps one small aspect as to the mention of the maiden name of the plaintiff in the Certificate granted to her under section 13-A2 on 29-3-1977, although she had been already married four days earlier. I shall have occasion to refer to this particular aspect in para 27 infra. No injustice, muchless of any substantial nature, has resulted to the petitioners by the procedure followed by the Appellate Bench. I am clear, no remand is called for. Even if the lower Appellate Court was bound to admit the appeal-my view is it was not bound to do so-its judgment is not rendered a nullity. Indeed, the lower Court was conscious of the constraints on its powers to dispose of appeals summarily. In the view of the learned Judges, the appeal did not raise any seriously arguable points. I endorse their view and the course followed by them.
12. I have heard both learned Counsel at length on all merits of the case. I find that the final findings reached by the Appellate Bench are correct on both issues. I shall indicate my reasons in brief.
13. As the petitioners have raised some technical objections with regard to the Certificate granted under section 13-A2 of the Act, I prefer to dispose of first the other issue arising under section 13(1)(g). The learned Counsel have taken me not only through the judgments of the two courts below but also through the evidence they rely on. The question of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff has been dealt with in full detail by the trial Court in paragraphs 29 to 33 of its judgement and by the Appellate Bench in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20, 21. The question of comparative hardship has been again dealt with at more than sufficient length by the trial Court in paragraphs 34 to 38. The Appellate Court has adopted the same reasons in para 23 of its judgment.
14. The facts that have emerged out practically undisputed are that the plaintiff and her mother are original residents of Pune. The plaintiff passed her M.B.B.S. Examination from Pune in 1972 and did her M.D. also there only in 1973. Then she proceeded abroad to U.K. and Germany for her further studies and returned back to India in September 1974. As she was a lady member of the Club House of the Cricket Club of India, she was allowed to stay there until her marriage. Her marriage with one Farook Chenoy, a Chartered Accountant by profession, came off on 25th March, 1977. Consequent on the marriage, she was obliged to leave those premises. Before marriage, Farook was residing with his parents in a two bedroom flat in Jehangir Mansion at Matunga. Apart from Farook were residing in that flat with him, his four brothers, mother, wife of one married brother and one sister. Thus the total tally of the occupants of that flat came to 8 in 1977. As already indicated above, the plaintiff had already joined the Tata Memorial Centre in August 1975.
15. After the marriage, the couple did not go to reside in the aforesaid flat and instead went in for a flat in Chembur. The plaintiff managed to take this flat for a temporary period of six months on caretaker basis from some employee of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre under which the Tata Memorial Centre admittedly works. It has come to the evidence of the plaintiff and not disputed by the petitioners that the couple was obliged to leave these premises in September 1977, because the B.A.R.C. did not allow them to stay there any longer on caretaker basis. It has come in the evidence of the plaintiff-again this has not been challenged by the petitioners-the couple had to move from place to place as many as seven times. The plaintiff's evidence shows that on no occasion whatever did they leave a particular flat on their own option, but were obliged to do so by the grantor concerned. It was in 1981 that the couple could manage to get a flat of one Miss Ratanji of Pune in Mahim. Ever since they have managed to stick to that abode. According to the plaintiff this flat is again given to them by Miss Ratanji on caretaker basis and she can drive them away any time. Indeed, this Ratanji visits Bombay twice or thrice a year and stays in the aforesaid flat only.
16. As rightly observed by the courts below, there is absolutely no good reason to disbelieve the distressing tale of her condition told by the plaintiff. Shri Dalvi drew my attention to the admission of the plaintiff that she had brought her furniture to this particular flat, while for the previous flats she had been hiring it temporarily. From this circumstances Shri Dalvi wants me to draw an inference that the arrangement between the parties must be one of tenancy. The plaintiff admits that she had brought a little furniture from Pune which was presented to her at the time of her marriage. There is no evidence documentary or otherwise to suggest that the arrangement between the plaintiff and Miss Ratanji is that of tenancy. I am not impressed by Shri Dalvi's logic that because a little furniture was purchased by the plaintiff for the Mahim flat, it indicates that the grant was to lease. I do not see any reason whatever to disagree with the concurrent view of the two lower courts that the plaintiff is occupying the premises merely as a licensee of Miss Ratanji and that she is at absolute mercy of the latter.
17. Shri Dalvi next argues that the plaintiff should have joined her parents-in-law in their Matunga flat. I again fail to appreciate the logic of this submission. As already adverted to above, there were eight members residing in that two bedroom flat in March 1977 on the eve of the plaintiff's marriage. Ever since one more brother of Farook has got married and there have been three arrivals in the family. The number of occupants have now increased to nine. The very fact that even immediately after the marriage, the plaintiff and Farook did not go to that flat for even temporary stay, is eloquent enough to infer that now it will be impossible for them along with their two daughters, to squeeze themselves into the overcrowded flat. Shri Dalvi's suggestion has to be rejected outright without any further discussion.
18. The present is a clear case where the plaintiff's claim under section 13(1)(g) that she reasonably and bona fide requires the suit premises for occupation by herself and members of her family will have to be upheld without any hesitation. At the moment she is entirely at the mercy of Miss Ratanji. Reference may be made with advantage to a decision of Kotwal, J., in 1983(2) Bom.C.R. 523, Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. v. Smt. Mrinal. The facts of the present case are far more favourable to the plaintiff. Without dilating further, I confirm the findings of the two courts below that the plaintiff has squarely proved her claim under section 13(1)(g) of the Act. I endorse the reasons given by them in support of the aforesaid finding.
19. On the question of comparative hardship, again the reasons given by the trial Court in paragraphs 34 to 38 of this judgment are not open to any exception. I endorse them in full. As pointed out by the learned trial Judge the 2nd petitioner had agreed to make available the suit premises to the plaintiff by the time she returned back from abroad after completing her studies. This is pretty clear from the correspondence between the parties. Instead of abiding by the aforesaid promise, the company inducted their officers, the third and 4th petitioners into the suit flat after the 2nd petitioner left the same and settled himself comfortably in another flat. I am not here concerning myself with the legality of the Company's action. But the fact remains that the unsuspecting plaintiff was put to great hardship by the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners. As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, there is no material to hold that the Company is under any obligation to furnish accommodation to its officers (namely, the 3rd and the 4th petitioners). Without dilating further, I confirm the findings of the two Courts below that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff by declining her possession that the petitioners if possession is decreed.
20. Shri Dalvi next urges that the suit flat could be shared by the Company and the plaintiff. I am clear, this suggestion is not at all feasible. The suit flat has three bedrooms, one sitting-cum-dining room and one kitchen. The plaintiff work as an Assistant Pathologist earning about Rs, 3,500/- per month. Her husband Farook has matching earnings. Officers of the Company who will share the flat with the plaintiff will also obviously be of substantial status. The plaintiff has two daughters aged about 8 and 6. The officers of the Company will also be normally having families. The suggestion that two sides could share the flat is on the face of it unpractical. It has to be rejected.
21. The result is that eviction is rightly granted in favour of the plaintiff under section 13(1)(g) of the Act.
22. Now I shall be brief in dealing with the other ground of eviction under section 13A2. Shri Dalvi has raised the following contentions so far as this ground is concerned :
(a) The Certificate has not been duly proved.
(b) The Certificate is bad for non-application of mind.
(c) Director R.C. Sharma who issued the Certificate is not proved to be holder of a post equivalent or superior to Deputy Secretary.
(d) The plaintiff has failed to prove that she was holding a Scientific post.
(e) The Certificate was obtained on 29th March, 1977 before the institution of the suit, while the law requires that it should be produced at the date of hearing of the suit which started only in 1985.
23. I have heard Shri Dalvi at more than sufficient length on all these aspects. I am, however, not impressed by any of his submissions. So far as contention (a) regarding the proof of the Certificate is concerned, it is true that Sharma has not been examined by the plaintiff. However, she has affirmed on oath that Sharma signed the Certificate in her own presence. Further she examined one Baptiwalla (P.W. 2) who was at the material time Land Records and Survey Officer in the Department of Atomic Energy. He affirms that he is acquainted with the signature of Sharma and has affirmed that the signature on the Certificate is his. The testimony of the plaintiff will be relevant under section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. That of Baptiwalla will attract section 47 of that Act. The formal contents of the Certificate thus stand squarely proved.
24. What Shri Dalvi argues is that the contents cannot be said to have been duly proved, unless the author of the letter himself is examined. For this proposition he relies on : AIR1983Bom1 Omprakash v. Unit Trust of India, a decision of Bharucha, J. Its perusal makes it abundantly clear that after taking stock of all the previous rulings, the learned Judge has reached the conclusion that distinction has to be made between the proof of 'the contents of a document' and the proof of 'truth of the contents of the document'. Where only the contents of a document are necessary to be proved, the author need not be examined. However, where the truth of the contents is to be proved, normally examination of the author is a must, if he is available. With respect, I agree with the view taken by Bharucha, J., in the aforesaid case.
25. Now what are the facts of our case? Is it enough for the plaintiff to prove the contest of the Certificte? Or is it further necessary for her to prove the truth of its contents as well? Explanation 2 to section 13-A(2) provides that for the purposes of the aforesaid section any Certificate granted thereunder shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Thus once the contents of the Certificate as distinguished from the truth thereof are duly proved, Explanation 2 will become operative, and the Certificate will become the conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The 3rd paragraph of section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that where a certain piece of evidence is conclusive, law will not countenance its disproof by any party. It follows that the present is a case where only proof of the contents of the Certificate is necessary. Contents are adequately proved by the plaintiff and Baptiwala. Proof of the truth of the contents will be taken care of by Explanation 2. There is thus no merit in Shri Dalvi's contention formulated above at (a).
26. I come to contention (b) regarding non-application of mind by Sharma. In this regard Shri Dalvi relies on the facts that the application for the Certificate was made on 29th March, 1977 and the Certificate was issued on the same day. According to him the hurry in grant of the Certificate itself indicates that Sharma has not applied his mind to the material facts. I am aware that the authority which issues the Certificate has to be consciously careful in granting the Certificate. It cannot afford to be mechanical or careless in his approach: 1979 Mh.L.J. 125 Sushilabai v. M.S. Dhillon. However, as rightly observed by the Appellate Bench, simply because Sharma has acted expeditiously, one cannot straightaway jump to the inference that he had not applied his mind to the case. The plaintiff has arranged to get production of the entire relevant file in Court during the trial. The petitioners did not care to bring materials from that file on record in support of their present contentions. Indeed, in their written statement there is not even a whisper that the Certificate was bad for non-application of mind.
27. Shri Dalvi drew my attention to the fact that Sharma has described the plaintiff by her maiden name and not by her post marriage name, although the Certificate was granted four days after the marriage. This objection was not raised in the courts below. This apart, I do not think this circumstance make any qualitative difference. It is well known that it takes a long time---certainly more than four days---for substitution of women's post marriage names in the official records. Perhaps Sharma might have consciously chosen to mention the plaintiff by her maiden name only, because that tallied with the description of her name in the official records at the material time. I am not impressed by this particular submission of Shri Dalvi. I see no reason to disagree with the findings of the lower courts that the Certificate is not vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind.
28. Coming to the contention (c) raised by Shri Dalvi it will be seen that again the petitioners did not care to raise this objection in their written statement or even in the Memo of Appeal filed before the lower Court. This apart, reference can be made with advantage to the observations of the learned trial Judge in paragraph 24 of his judgment. As observed by the learned trial Judge, recommendations of the Third Pay Commission were produced before him during the course of the trial and it was found that the post of the Director was above the rank of a Deputy Secretary. I do not see any good reason to disagree with this finding of the learned trial Judge. There is thus no substance in this particular contention of Shri Dalvi.
29. Coming to the submission (d) of Shri Dalvi, it will be seen that once the Certificate is held to be operative and not vitiated on any ground, the facts stated therein that the plaintiff holds a Scientific Post becomes conclusive evidence of that fact by virtue of Explanation 2 read with section 13-A2(1)(i) of the Act. It is not open to Shri Dalvi or to the Court to enter into this controversy. Even if it were permissible, there is evidence of the plaintiff to the effect that she has been doing research work of a serious nature in Pathology. She has published quite a few papers in Scientific Journals of International and National levels. I leave this point here.
30. The last submission of Shri Dalvi as reflected in Item (a) supra, has to be rejected as being fallacious in logic. Naturally if a plaintiff wishes to rely on a ground for eviction recognised by section 13-A2, he or she will have to obtain the Certificate before the institution of the suit. It is plain that unless she procures such Certificate before instituting the suit, she will not be simply able to make requisite averments in that regard in her plaint. Eventually there will be no defence in this aspect in the written statement. It follows that the Certificate will have to be procured before the institution of the suit although it might be produced at the hearing. This is exactly what has been done in the present case.
31. It is true that the hearing of the case has taken place more than seven years after the institution of the suit. But for this the plaintiff is hardly to blame. The petitioners took the question of the vires of section 13-A2 to the High Court and the decision of the High Court came off after a lapse of 6-7 years. I am not blaming the petitioners for taking up the question of vires to the High Court. They were legitimately entitled to do so. But that the plaintiffs also cannot certainly be made to suffer for the aforesaid event.
32. After all, on what facts will the Certificate be conclusive by virtue of the operation of Explanation 2 to section 13-A2? Obviously on facts as they obtained on the day of its issuance. If any events occur subsequently, the Certificate will not be conclusive qua them, and the parties will be at perfect liberty to prove those facts. In the present case the material facts that have occurred after the issuance of the Certificate are that the plaintiff has been blessed with two daughters after the marriage and there has been increase in the number of the occupants of Farook's mother's overcrowded Matunga flat. These and other minor facts have been proved by the parties concerned. There is thus no substance in Shri Dalvi's contention on this aspect or so.
33. The learned Counsel of both sides agree that the question of the bona fide of the plaintiff's requirement has to be established independently of the grant of the Certificate; See 1984 Mh.L.J. 426, S.C. Shivram v. Radhabai, followed by Dharmadhikari, J., in 1985 B.R.C. 12, Sadarangani v. Kastoorbai Mayabai Pvt. Ltd. The foregoing discussion on the question falling under section 13(1)(g), leaves no doubt that the plaintiff's claim is bona fide. Indeed, it has been held to be reasonable also. The result of the above discussion is that the order of eviction of the petitioners can be squarely sustained under section 13-A2 of the Act as well.
34. The concurrent findings of the courts will have to be upheld in their entirety. This writ petition is dismissed with costs of both sides on the petitioners. Rule discharged.
35. At this stage, Shri P.S. Shah for the petitioners requests for time to bring stay order from the Supreme Court. Time granted upto 31st July, 1986 on the petitioners' filing on undertaking in writing in this Court within two weeks to the effect that they will not part with possession of the suit flat in favour of any third party and that they will vacate the suit flat immediately after 31st July, 1986, subject to the orders of Supreme Court, if any. The petitioners are further directed to give a week's notice to the respondents before moving the Supreme Court.