ORDER
M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. I have heard the petitioners’ learned Advocate and the respondent’s learned Advocate at considerable length. Even though the petition is listed for admission, the respondent is represented and his learned Advocate was instructed to strongly oppose the admission of the petition on merits which he has done. Consequently, in the first instance I have heard the two learned Advocates on merits.
2. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Acharya pointed out from the measurement of the premises that they are of a very modest size and that the widow with he) six children is residing there. He submitted that from the fact that she is staying there with the entire family is self-evident that their economic condition is so very weak that they have not been able to secure any other better place and that it would be impossible for them to do so. Many of these submissions were pressed forward by the learned Counsel because he pointed out to the Court that the issue of bona fides and more importantly balance of convenience and greater hardship are aspects which the first Revisional Court had not applied its mind to; because it was his submission that the general principles regardless of the change of statutes have not been altered as far as these classes of cases are concerned. While it is true that the first Revisional Court has not apparently gone into these areas as appears from the order, one needs to take into account the fact that the Trial
Court has considered all of them and the Revisional Court therefore while agreeing with that order did not find it necessary to record separate reasons.
3. More importantly, the submission canvassed is that the error apparent ori the face of the record or in other words, the legal error that requires reconsideration stems from the fact that the immediate family of the respondent-landlord consists of himself and his wife whereas the wife’s sister and her children though supposedly residing with them would be outside the definition of the family. Secondly, Mr. Acharya was quick to point out that if the need that has been put forward is in relation to the last three persons as the present accommodation is sufficient for the landlord and his wife, that no eviction order could have been passed since those persons do not come within the immediate definition of family. Mr. Bhat on the other hand submitted that this contention itself is incorrect because family within the meaning of this statute has always been understood as being a unit consisting of parents and dependents and he pointed out that if there is a widowed family member or for that matter, closely related young children who have lost their breadwinner, parents and the like, that even though strictly speaking and biologically if they are not within the family that they would be like “foster dependents” and would have to be taken as part of the unit. To my mind, this last submission will have to be upheld on the facts of the present case though I hasten to add that it may or may not hold good in other situations. The real question is as to whether the earlier order is required to be interfered with on this ground alone and I find it difficult to uphold this plea.
4. Alternatively, as an extension of the hardship that was pleaded, the submission was canvassed that if for any reason the Court were to refuse interference then on humanitarian grounds the Court should grant a little more time than is ordinarily granted by the Courts to vacate. This plea was opposed by Mr. Bhat who pointed out the age and other conditions of his client and he submitted that where the Courts for whatever reason grant unduly large doses of sympathy to one party that it works out extremely harsh and prejudicial to the one at the receiving end. He was quick to also point out that the litigations invariably take many many years and after they are finally concluded if further time is granted that the beneficiaries are hardly able to even get the fruits of this success.
5. I do not dispute the correctness of what has been pointed out on either side and it is rather tragic that in all these cases the Court is really adjudicating between two sets of persons both of whom are in distressing situations. In both cases the need is great and it is difficult to balance one against the other. Ail that this Court can do is to record the fact that at least it is a final conclusion of the litigation and secondly, where a generous amount of time is granted to specify at this stage that there will be under no circumstances any extension or reconsideration so that the party is put on notice and sees to it that alternate
arrangements are made. The Court always words the order in such a way that an outer deadline is fixed in the hope that where the parties have to look for other premises, the search will commence immediately and if the premises are secured that the party can move even before the deadline is over. I need to record that Mr. Bhat did his very best to convince the Court that a period of two years which I propose to grant is unduly/abnormally long and that nothing more than six or nine months should be granted but again, it is only because of the special facts and circumstances that the longer time period is being afforded.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid position, the petitioner is granted two years time from today as an outer limit within which the petitioner shall quit, vacate and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent. The petitioner shall endeavour to do so earlier than that if it is possible. The petitioner shall also ensure that all the dues are paid from time to time and are cleared before handing over possession and it is made clear that if there are any defaults in respect of the terms set by this Court that the decree shall be executed. The petitioner shall file an unconditional undertaking before the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today undertaking to vacate and hand over the premises to the respondent within an outer limit of two years from today. The petitioner shall also undertake not to create any third party rights or to induct any third party in the premises during this period of time.
7. The revision accordingly fails and stands disposed of with these directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Copy of this order to be furnished to the learned Advocates forthwith.