Om Prakash Garg, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner tenant and Sri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Jain appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed SCC Suit No. 85 of 1990 against the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. It was dismissed on 7th October, 1997. The land -ladies took the matter in revision which was allowed on 11th January, 2000 and the case was remanded with the direction that the postman shall be examined with a view to ascertain whether the composite notice of demand and to quit was served on the petitioner or not. Against the said order Writ Petition No. 7297 of 2000 was filed which has been dismissed by this Court on 29th February, 2000. After remand of the case the suit has been decreed by order dated 26th August, 2000. The petitioner preferred civil revision No. 5 of 2001 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which has now been dismissed by order dated 4th April, 2001. In is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come before this Court. After having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, I find that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the two Courts below that the composite notice of demand and to quit was served on the tenant -petitioner. It has also been found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the accommodation in question. I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below and accordingly dismiss the petition.
(2.) AFTER dismissal of the petition, Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that some time may be allowed to the petitioner to shift to another alternative accommodation. Sri R.K. Jain has no objection if some reasonable time is allowed to the petitioner to vacate the disputed accommodation. After having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and with a view to balance their rights, it would be proper if execution/implementation of the decree in so far as it relates to the petitioner is deferred upto 31st December, 2001, provided the petitioner deposit s the entire decretal amount along with damages payable upto 31st December, 2001 by 15th May, 2001 and also files an undertaking on affidavit by the said date before the Prescribed Authority that he shall hand over vacant possession in peaceful manner to the land -ladies, Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, positively on or before 31st December 2001. In case of failure of the petitioner to abide by any of the conditions by the date specified, the decree shall become executable all at once right after 15th May, 2001.;