IMPORTANT POINTS
When a case is disposed of in terms of undertaking by a party, that party will be precluded from challenging the judgment.
Abuse of the process of law must be viewed seriously.

JUDGMENT :

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. The Special Leave Petitions in the present case arise from three orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a First Appeal:-

(i) an order dated 22 November 2013 by which a year’s time was granted to the petitioners (in terms as prayed) to vacate the premises which formed the subject matter of a decree for eviction, until 30 November 2014;

(ii) an order dated 2 December 2013 by which the High Court disposed of the First Appeal in terms of the undertaking filed by the petitioners; and

(iii) an order dated 16 June 2015 by which the petition for review has been dismissed. There is a delay of 503 and 522 days respectively in the Special Leave Petitions filed against the orders dated 2 December 2013 and 22 November 2013. Since the petitioners moved the High Court in a petition for review, we condone the delay and having heard counsel, proceed to dispose of the Special Leave Petitions by this judgment.

2. The subject matter of the dispute comprises of commercial premises bearing Shop No.8 A, Bhatia Bhuvan Ground Floor, D.S. Babrekar Marg, Off Gokhale Road (North), Dadar, Mumbai 400 028. The finding of fact (as will be elucidated hereafter) is that the premises were granted under a conducting agreement to the petitioners for carrying on the business of a laundry. The case of the original plaintiff who sued for possession was that the premises were granted on the basis of a conducting agreement on 31 July 1968 on a royalty of Rs.260 per month. The suit for eviction was filed against the petitioners in the Court of Small Causes on 26 April 1984. Initially, the suit was decreed on 15 September 1999. In an appeal filed by the petitioners, the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by a judgment dated 10 January 2002 held that since the petitioners were in occupation of the premises under a conducting agreement, there was no relationship of licensor and licensee. As a result, the Court of Small Causes was held to have no jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts’ Act. The appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was hence allowed. The judgment of the appellate Bench was questioned in a Writ Petition filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 24 June 2002.

3. The respondents thereupon instituted a suit in the City Civil Court for recovering possession of the premises. The suit was decreed by a judgment dated 5 May 2012. The trial judge entered a finding of fact that the premises had been given on a conducting basis. In support of this finding, the trial Judge adverted to the admission of the first defendant in certain proceedings which were instituted before the Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act to the effect that the laundry had been taken over on a conducting basis from the original Plaintiff. The finding recorded by the trial judge was in the following terms :-

“The question to be considered in this case is as to whether the business of the laundry was given to the defendant no.1 on conducting basis or not. It is pertinent to note that the workers of the Kismet Laundry had filed case in the Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act bearing Case nos.530 of 1974 and 531 of 1974 against the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff. In that case defendant no.1 had given evidence. He has admitted that he has taken laundry business “Kismat Laundry” for conducting the laundry business on 01/08/1968 on payment of royalty of Rs.260/-from the plaintiff. In his cross-examination DW-1 Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik in this suit admitted about giving deposition in the labour Court. Thus, from the admissions of the defendant no.1 it is established that the original plaintiff had given laundry business on conducting basis to the defendant no.1. In his cross-examination defendant no.1 has also further admitted that stock-in-trade, furniture relating to the business were given to him and the r