NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – High Court granted bail without addressing incriminating circumstances, prior linked seizure, or recording mandatory satisfaction under Section 37(1)(b) – Held: Orders unsustainable – Remanded for fresh consideration; interim bail to continue till reconsideration [Paras 15–22].

Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Mandatory Twin Conditions – Improper Application by High Court - High Court granted bail reasoning that there was no material showing respondent’s knowledge of cocaine in imported pears consignment, absence of antecedents, and prolonged custody – Held: High Court failed to apply mandatory twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(i) & (ii) and did not record satisfaction that accused was not guilty or unlikely to commit offence while on bail [Paras 14–19].

NDPS – Conscious Possession – Statements and Circumstances Ignored by High Court - High Court did not consider prosecution’s assertions: respondent placed import orders, controlled logistics chain, coordinated with overseas supplier, and was present during opening of container – Statements under Section 67 NDPS Act and surrounding circumstances prima facie relevant to conscious possession and presumption under Section 35 NDPS Act – High Court erred in ignoring these materials [Paras 15–16].

NDPS – Antecedent Seizure of 198.1 kg Methamphetamine and 9.035 kg Cocaine – Non-consideration - Prosecution relied on earlier seizure (02.10.2022) allegedly linked to same network and involving respondent – This material was not noticed or evaluated in impugned bail orders – Such omission directly affects statutory satisfaction under Section 37 – Order unsustainable [Paras 16–19].

Bail – Long Custody & Delay – Not Alone Sufficient to Override Section 37 - High Court relied on prolonged custody and anticipated delay – Held: these factors, while relevant, cannot override statutory bar under Section 37 unless Court first records mandatory satisfaction regarding innocence and non-likelihood of reoffending – High Court exceeded discretion [Paras 14, 17–18].

Judicial Review of Bail Orders – Commercial Quantity Cases Require Elevated Scrutiny - Supreme Court reiterates that in NDPS commercial quantity cases, ordinary CrPC bail parameters are supplemented by stringent statutory embargo – High Court must engage with all material on record and prosecution's assertions before granting bail [Paras 18–20].

Remand – Fresh Consideration Directed – Interim Bail to Continue - Supreme Court refrains from making factual findings at threshold; sets aside bail orders dated 22.01.2025 & 12.03.2025 – Matter remitted to High Court to reconsider bail afresh keeping Section 37 and all factual materials in view – Interim bail to continue but violation will permit cancellation [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Orders set aside – Matter remanded – Interim bail continued - Appeals disposed of – Bail orders quashed – High Court to decide afresh within four weeks; no opinion expressed on merits [Paras 21–23].

Insurance Law – Boiler & Pressure Plant Policy – Repudiation of Claim – Explosion in registered boiler occurred during currency of fitness certificate – Insurer failed to prove suppression or pre-existing defects – Exclusion Clause 5 not attracted where defects surface only after explosion – NCDRC order set aside; claim restored for determination of quantum [Paras 23, 30–33, 37–41, 43–44].

Insurance Claim – Repudiation – Explosion – The appellant alleged a boiler explosion; insurer did not traverse the specific plea of explosion; survey reports did not conclusively rule out explosion – Held: Explosion deemed established; claim could not be rejected on assumption of mere tube slippage [Paras 23, 30–32].

Contract of Insurance – Duty of Disclosure – No evidence that proposer concealed material facts; no enquiry sought by insurer on age/condition of tubes; boiler validly registered and certified for use under the Boilers Act – Held: No failure of utmost good faith; repudiation unsustainable [Paras 27, 29–36].

Exclusion Clause 5 – Interpretation – Clause excludes defects due to wear, corrosion, deterioration etc. unless such defects “result in explosion” – Where explosion is not denied and defects surface only after the event, exclusion clause cannot apply – Held: NCDRC erred in applying clause 5; clause to be construed to uphold main purpose of policy [Paras 22, 37–41].

Boiler Registration – Evidentiary Value – Boiler had a valid certificate under the Boilers Act; accident occurred during subsistence of certificate – Held: Heavy burden on insurer to displace presumption of fitness; insurer showed no proof of unfitness or fraud; post-accident corrosion findings irrelevant [Paras 25, 32–33, 39].

Surveyor’s Reports – Weightage – Surveyor’s report placed for first time before NCDRC, years after filing – Though expert opinion must be given due weight, belated production and ambivalence regarding explosion cannot defeat claim – No definite finding of pre-existing defects – State Commission justified in adverse inference [Paras 17, 30–32, 38].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability under Article 136 – Insurer argued appeal not maintainable due to alternate remedy of writ – Held: No inherent bar; matter fully pleaded and ready; relegation would delay justice; Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction [Para 42].

Relief – Order of NCDRC set aside – Appeals before NCDRC restored for consideration of quantum of compensation only – All other issues closed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 43–45].

Consumer Protection Act – Definition of Consumer – Commercial Purpose – Corporate purchase of business automation software held directly connected to profit-generation – Not covered by self-employment exception – Held: Appellant-company is not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d); complaint not maintainable; appeal dismissed [Paras 15–18, 21–28].

Consumer Law – Commercial Purpose – Dominant Purpose Test – Purchase of Software for Business Automation - Purchase of “Brillio Opti Suite” software by appellant-company engaged in import/export operations had direct nexus with business documentation, tracking shipments, managing export benefits, and improving operational efficiency – Dominant object being profit augmentation—Held: transaction is for a commercial purpose; appellant not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act [Paras 4, 10, 17, 22, 27].

Definition of Consumer – Companies Included but Excluded When Goods/Services Used for Commercial Purpose - Court reaffirms that companies fall within “person” under Section 2(1)(m); however, exclusion clause bars persons availing goods/services for commercial purpose – Corporate use of business-automation software falls squarely within exclusion [Paras 13–14].

Self-Employment Exception – Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) – Inapplicable to Corporations - Exception applies only when goods/services are used exclusively to earn livelihood by means of self-employment – Distinction drawn between individuals earning livelihood and corporations maximising profits – Held: corporate purchaser cannot invoke the exception; software was procured for business expansion and efficiency [Paras 18, 22].

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Principles – Dominant Purpose – Nexus with Profit – Applicability - Court applies broad principles: identity of purchaser or value of transaction irrelevant; what matters is dominant purpose – If purchase is linked to profit-generation, it is commercial – Automation of business processes is aimed at reducing costs and increasing profits; hence commercial [Paras 15–16].

Reliance on Sunil Kohli and Paramount Digital – Distinguished - Those decisions involved unemployed individuals purchasing goods for livelihood – Present case involves a well-established corporation already engaged in commercial activity – Therefore, precedents on self-employment do not assist the appellant [Paras 19–21].

Business-to-Business Transactions – Software Licence – Not a Consumer Dispute - Consumer Protection Act primarily addresses business-to-consumer relationships; business-to-business purchases used for profit are excluded from consumer jurisdiction – Software licence here was a B2B commercial tool [Para 10].

Harsolia Motors Clarified – Goods/services with direct nexus to profit-generation constitute commercial purpose; only purchases unrelated to profit (e.g., office AC, refrigerator) fall outside commercial purpose; present purchase directly tied to business operations and profitability [Paras 24–26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant not a Consumer - Held: Software purchased for automating business processes and maximising profits constitutes commercial purpose – State Commission and NCDRC right in dismissing complaint as not maintainable – Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs [Paras 28–30].

Criminal Law – Second FIR Quashed – Abuse of Process – Appellant was prosecution witness in CBI case involving bribe to GST officials – Following his adverse deposition against university management, second FIR registered accusing him of harboring the accused – Police filed cancellation report but Magistrate took cognizance on protest petition – Supreme Court held second FIR and summoning order unsustainable – Found it to be vindictive prosecution and abuse of process [Paras 2–4, 7].

Criminal Law – Sections Misapplied – Magistrate took cognizance under IPC Sections including forgery and IT Act provisions – Supreme Court held that even if allegations were accepted on face value, only offence under Section 212 IPC (harboring offender) could possibly arise – Attempt to introduce unalleged offences without foundation impermissible – Held: Cognizance order and High Court judgment upholding it are legally flawed [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Forgery Not Made Out – No specific act of forgery or falsification of electronic records alleged – Appellant was neither author nor user of any allegedly false document – Held: No ingredients of Sections 465–471 IPC or IT Act offences made out [Paras 5–6].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Protection Against Harassment – Court reiterated that prosecution cannot be weaponized to harass or retaliate against witnesses – Vindictive FIRs to suppress testimony undermine rule of law – Cancellation report rightly accepted [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Procedure – Protest Petition – Magistrate’s acceptance of protest petition to reverse cancellation report must be based on cogent material – Present case involved no such material and the complainant’s allegations contradicted the FIR’s own narrative [Paras 3–5].

Civil Law – Counterclaim – Co-defendant – Specific performance – Plaintiff sued sole defendant for specific performance of oral agreement for 0.93 acres – Subsequent impleadment of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 claiming agreement to purchase same land and raising counterclaim for conveyance against defendant No. 1 – Trial Court and High Court permitted counterclaim to avoid multiplicity – Supreme Court applying Rohit Singh and Rajul Mano Shah holds counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC must be directed against plaintiff and not co-defendant – Counterclaim of defendants 2 & 3 held not maintainable, found lacking concrete and timely enforceable claim in any event – Liberty to file separate suit declined as claim already barred by limitation – Appeal allowed – Counterclaim set aside and parties relegated to trial on remaining issues [Paras 2, 5-8, 9-15, 16].

Civil Procedure – Counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC – Direction of claim – Counterclaim cannot be maintained against co-defendant – Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance against sole defendant for 0.93 acres based on oral agreement and payment of consideration – After impleadment, defendant Nos. 2 & 3 raised counterclaim for transfer of entire land against defendant No. 1 alone – Relying on Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 734 and Rajul Mano Shah @ Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel, (2025) 10 SCR 152, Court reiterates that though counterclaim may be based on a different but connected cause of action, it has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be directed against a co-defendant – Counterclaim of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 therefore unsustainable in law [Paras 2, 4-7, 9-11, 14].

Civil Procedure – Specific performance suit – Impleadment of persons in possession – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Effect – Sole defendant pleaded that defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were in possession of part of the suit property – They were impleaded on their own application – Court holds that once such parties are impleaded, the suit no longer suffers from defect of non-joinder of necessary parties on the ground of possession – Their presence is necessary so that, if decree for specific performance is granted, plaintiff may also seek recovery of possession – However, such impleadment does not legitimise an otherwise incompetent counterclaim against a co-defendant [Paras 6-7, 12, 14].

Specific performance – Competing claims over same property – Lack of concrete and consistent plea by subsequent purchasers – Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 first asserted an agreement to purchase entire land for Rs.5,50,000 with part-payment of Rs.2,95,000 – They also conceded that 43 decimals out of same land were agreed to be conveyed to plaintiff’s father for Rs.2,55,000 and alleged fraudulent alteration in receipt from 43 to 93 decimals – Ultimately claimed at least 50 decimals be conveyed to them based only on part-payment, without a clear agreement for that part – Court finds their stand shifting and “no concrete claim” against property, even for purposes of counterclaim [Paras 5-8, 13].

Limitation – Counterclaim for specific performance – Belated claim – Liberty to file separate suit – Cause of action for defendants 2 & 3 claimed to have arisen on 02.12.2002 – Their impleadment application and counterclaim filed only in 2006 – Court holds that at the time of filing counterclaim, claim for specific performance was already barred by limitation – Consequently, no reason to grant liberty to file a separate suit at this stage when claim is “grossly delayed” and already time-barred – Liberty to institute independent proceedings refused [Paras 7-8, 13, 15].

Civil Procedure – High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – Approach disapproved – High Court dismissed plaintiff’s Article 227 petition on ground of avoiding multiplicity and observed that maintainability of counterclaim could be decided in the suit – Supreme Court holds that when law is settled that counterclaim cannot be directed against co-defendant, permitting such counterclaim to proceed is impermissible – Order of Trial Court and High Court upholding counterclaim set aside [Paras 3-4, 9-11, 14, 16].

Civil Procedure – Trial to proceed on remaining issues – Scope preserved – While setting aside counterclaim of defendant Nos. 2 & 3, Court clarifies that impleadment of said defendants continues to save suit from defect of non-joinder on ground of possession – No finding is rendered on possession – Trial Court to determine possession and, if so appropriately sought, grant recovery of possession in favour of plaintiff – All contentions except validity of counterclaim kept open for adjudication at trial [Paras 12, 14, 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court permitting counterclaim by defendant Nos. 2 & 3 set aside – Counterclaim rejected as not maintainable against co-defendant and as time-barred and lacking concrete basis – Defendants 2 & 3 to remain as parties for purposes of adjudication of possession and other issues – Parties relegated to Trial Court to agitate all contentions except that of counterclaim of defendants 2 & 3, which stands finally negatived – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 14-17].

Religious Endowment – Execution of Compromise Decree – Dispute between two sects of Kuruba community over custody of idols and performance of pooja to deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy – Compromise decree passed on 01.11.1933 provided for rotational pooja, joint trusteeship, and shared possession of idols and articles – Execution Petition filed in 2000 alleging non-compliance by respondents – Held: Appellants failed to prove breach or that respondents were ever in possession – Execution cannot be granted based on presumptions – High Court rightly set aside Executing Court’s order [Paras 1–2, 5–7, 23–28]

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Onus on Decree-Holder – Decree-holder must prove willful disobedience or breach of decree by judgment-debtor – No evidence adduced to show rotation of idols occurred or that Rs.2,000/- was paid as per Clause (1) of decree – Decree not acted upon for decades – Mere long silence cannot be presumed as compliance – Held: Presumption cannot substitute proof in execution proceedings [Paras 24–26, 28]

Religious Practices – Implementation of Ritual Rotation – Compromise decree required rotation of idols every six months and alternating pooja every three months – Also required appointment of two trustees from each group – No material produced to prove appointment of trustees or maintenance of accounts – Admitted failure to implement decree – Held: Scheme under decree never operationalised – Absence of compliance points to continued exclusive possession by appellants themselves [Paras 25–27]

Evidence – Presumption vs Proof – Executing Court proceeded on presumption that respondents had custody due to absence of prior dispute – However, no documentary or independent evidence produced – Testimony of witnesses consisted of bare assertions – Appellants’ own witness admitted uncertainty regarding custody and non-payment of Rs.2,000/- – Held: Findings based on assumption without proof are legally unsustainable [Paras 24–26]

Execution of Consent Decree – Long Delay and Inaction – Compromise decree passed in 1933 – Execution sought only in 2000 – No proof of continuous implementation – No trustee system shown to have been followed – Non-payment of agreed amount by respondents evident – Held: Decree never acted upon – Execution barred due to lack of factual foundation [Paras 6, 7, 25–28]

Findings of Fact – High Court’s Interference with Executing Court – High Court reversed Executing Court’s order due to lack of evidence and reliance on mere inferences – Findings of fact revisited only where trial court’s findings are based on conjecture or are unsupported – Held: High Court committed no error in setting aside execution on factual grounds [Paras 13, 28–29]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No interference warranted with High Court’s judgment setting aside execution of 1933 compromise decree – Execution Petition rightly held unsustainable for lack of proof [Para 29]

Environmental Law – Protection of Delhi Ridge – Directions for Statutory Constitution and Functioning of DRMB – Supreme Court directs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to constitute the Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) as a statutory body under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Earlier, DRMB functioned under court orders without statutory backing – Held: Without statutory authority, effective and accountable functioning of DRMB was not possible – Further directed constitution of a Standing Committee for daily functioning and mandated DRMB to act as single-window authority for all issues relating to Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge [Paras 41-47, 50-52, 57].

Forest Conservation – Final Notification under Section 20, Indian Forest Act – Non-notification of Delhi Ridge deprives area of legal protection – Although preliminary notifications under Section 4 were issued in 1994 and 1996, final notification under Section 20 still pending – NGT (2021) and High Court (2024) directed GNCTD to issue notification – Court held delay unjustified – Ridge must be notified as Reserved Forest for its ecological integrity to be preserved [Paras 4, 5, 34, 35].

Environmental Degradation – Encroachment on Delhi Ridge – CEC Report and court-appointed authorities noted rampant encroachments – Court observed lack of active steps from GNCTD – Held: Encroachments defeat purpose of ecological protection – Directed DRMB to ensure removal of encroachments from both Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge [Paras 8, 36, 54, 57(iii)(c)].

Ecological Preservation – Morphological Ridge – Ridge-like areas outside notified Ridge require equal protection – Affirmed legal necessity for their identification and conservation – Held: Morphological Ridge must be preserved in same manner as notified Ridge – Committee formed by Court in 2023 directed to complete identification process – DRMB to ensure protection and ecological restoration of the Morphological Ridge [Paras 11-14, 37, 38, 57(iii)(d)-(e)].

Environmental Governance – Multiplicity of Monitoring Bodies – Presence of overlapping committees (CEC, NGT Oversight Committee, High-Powered Committees) causing duplication and conflicting decisions – Court directed MoEF&CC to consolidate functions into a single authority – DRMB reconstituted with statutory status and given sole monitoring authority – Standing Committee constituted under DRMB for efficient functioning [Paras 25-27, 39, 40, 50-52, 57].

Legal Accountability – DRMB's Statutory Status and Judicial Review – Held: DRMB must have statutory status to ensure transparency, accountability, and judicial scrutiny – Orders of DRMB would be subject to challenge before NGT under Section 14 of NGT Act or before High Court under Articles 226/227 – DRMB to function under environmental rule of law ensuring participatory governance [Paras 42-46].

Institutional Framework – Composition and Functions of Statutory DRMB – DRMB to consist of 13 members including Chief Secretary, GNCTD (Chair), representatives from MoEF&CC, DDA, civic bodies, civil society, and CEC – DRMB directed to undertake scientific management, ecological restoration, and prevent fragmentation of Ridge – Required to submit six-monthly reports and maintain transparency through public notices, consultations and website publication [Paras 57(i), 57(iii)(a)-(h)].

Judicial Supervision – Role of CEC in DRMB – Representative of Central Empowered Committee to be permanent member of DRMB – To submit quarterly reports to Supreme Court on DRMB’s performance – Held: CEC’s long-standing role in Ridge protection justifies its formal inclusion in DRMB [Paras 48, 49, 57(iv)].

Decision: Directions issued – MoEF&CC to notify DRMB under Section 3(3) of EP Act – DRMB to be sole authority for Ridge issues – Standing Committee to be constituted – Identification and notification of Morphological Ridge to be completed – Encroachments to be removed – Periodic reports to be submitted to Supreme Court.

Criminal Law – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Economic Offences – Bank Fraud – PC Act – One-time Settlement – Held: High Court erred in quashing FIR and chargesheet solely on settlement; grave financial fraud, fabrication of documents, loss to public exchequer, and involvement of bank manager under PC Act make quashing impermissible – Proceedings restored [Paras 23-27, 30-34].

Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet – Economic Offences – Public Interest – High Court quashed proceedings on basis of one-time settlement between borrower-company and bank – Supreme Court held that High Court failed to consider material findings of investigation establishing fabrication of work orders, forged mortgage documents, misrepresentation, and criminal conspiracy – Offences under PC Act and bank fraud cases cannot be quashed merely because dues are settled – Loss to public exchequer of more than ₹5 crores remained even after settlement – Held: Quashing erroneous; proceedings restored [Paras 23-27, 30-34].

Bank Fraud – Fabricated Documents – Misrepresentation – CBI investigation found that accused company submitted forged work orders (3 entirely fabricated, 7 misrepresented), false stock statements, and manipulated revenue records – Findings made out offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) PC Act – High Court ignored these crucial facts while quashing proceedings – Held: Quashing unsustainable [Paras 6-8, 23].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Prosecution of Bank Manager – Sanction granted – Quashing entire proceedings would indirectly exonerate public servant involved in financial misconduct – Offences under PC Act not private in nature and cannot be quashed on compromise – Public interest paramount – Held: High Court order perverse [Paras 13-14, 23-24].

One-Time Settlement – Not a Ground for Quashing – Settlement resulted in substantial haircut; bank recovered ₹41 crores against dues of ₹52 crores plus interest – Such settlements done under compulsion, not indicating absence of criminality – Economic offences have societal impact – Repayment does not wash away criminal liability – Held: Continuation of prosecution necessary in public interest [Paras 12, 26-27].

Distinguishing Prior Cases – Jaswant Singh, B.B. Aggarwal, Narendra Lal Jain – Supreme Court held those precedents inapplicable as they did not involve PC Act offences, or involved only civil-flavoured disputes, or lacked allegations of forged documents – Present case involves grave economic offences and fraud upon public exchequer – Consequently, reliance misplaced [Paras 28-33].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order quashing FIR and chargesheet set aside – Criminal proceedings restored before Trial Court – No observations to affect merits of trial [Paras 34-36].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control – Eviction on Ground of Wilful Default – Lessee initially paid rent at Rs.33,000/- p.m. against landlord’s claim of Rs.48,000/- – Rent Controller fixed fair rent at Rs.2,43,600/- p.m. with effect from 01.02.2005 – Lessee neither sought nor obtained stay of fair rent order – Lessee continued paying lower amount despite finality of fair rent order – Arrears accumulated and full settlement only made on 11.01.2013 – Held: Failure to pay fair rent despite judicial determination and absence of stay constitutes wilful default – Eviction rightly ordered [Paras 21, 22, 24, 28, 32]

Rent Control – Determination of Wilful Default – Fair rent fixed by Rent Controller not stayed at any stage of appellate or revisional proceedings – Despite confirmation by appellate authority and partial modification by High Court, lessee delayed payment for several years – Payments made only in instalments and belatedly – Held: Such conduct evidences deliberate and conscious default – Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act does not require notice as mandatory precondition – Rent Controller retains discretion to assess wilfulness even in absence of notice [Paras 21–28]

Civil Procedure – Effect of Appeal Without Stay – Appeal or revision against order fixing fair rent does not by itself operate as stay – Lessee cannot claim protection merely due to pendency of appeal when no stay was obtained – Judicial finality attaches to Rent Controller’s order unless stayed or overturned – Held: Non-payment during pendency without stay cannot absolve lessee of wilful default [Paras 23, 24, 29–31]

Interpretation of Statutes – Explanation to Section 10(2)(i), Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act – Two-month notice by landlord creates statutory presumption of wilful default – However, absence of such notice does not bar eviction – Rent Controller may still determine wilfulness based on tenant's conduct – Wilful default inferred from deliberate non-payment despite judicial directions – [Paras 25–27]

Tenant’s Conduct – Instalment Payments and Arrears – Tenant cleared arrears only after dismissal of SLPs and after six years from fair rent order – Arrears not cleared promptly despite legal notice and judicial pronouncements – Held: Belated payments do not negate wilfulness where delay is deliberate and unexplained – Pendency of appeal not sufficient justification [Paras 22, 29–31]

Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s Interference – High Court rightly declined interference with concurrent findings of appellate authority on wilful default – No jurisdictional error or perversity shown – Held: Revisional court need not re-appreciate facts absent material error or illegality – [Para 32]

Final Relief – Appeal dismissed – Eviction order affirmed – Appellants granted six months' time to vacate subject to filing of usual undertaking within two weeks – In default, landlord entitled to initiate execution [Paras 33, 34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Eviction upheld – Time of six months granted to vacate upon undertaking – No costs.