N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition by one tenant who was ordered to be evicted by the Small Causes Court Ahmedabad as per its order Annex- ure A confirmed by the Appellate Bench of that court as per its judg- ment Annexure B. Instead of filing the revision application under sec. 29 of the Bombay Rent Act the petitioner chose to file this special civil application which has come up for final hearing before me to-day. ( 2 ) THE eviction was ordered because the petitioners case was held to be falling within the ambit of sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit notice was held to be legal and valid. ( 3 ) BOTH the courts below concurrently held that the petitioners case squarely fell within the strict ambit of sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The tenant was in arrears for more than six months there was no dispute about standard rent raised within one month of the service of the statu-tory notice the rent was rightly held to be payable by month and it was also found that the tenant had failed to make the payment within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand. ( 4 ) THE petition is liable to be rejected on two counts. Firstly when alternative remedy was available arid the petitioner did not choose to pursue that the writ petition is not worthy to be entertained at all. Even if I hold that the petition is maintainable as such or alternatively held it to be a revision application under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act I see no reason - not even a remote one - for any interference with the orders passed by the courts below. On this ground I reject this petition with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ( 5 ) MR. Nanavati however urged that looking to the very pitiable condition of the petitioner some time to vacate should be given to him. Mr. Dave was initially reluctant to give any time and he was ready to give at the most six months time. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ( 5 ) MR. Nanavati however urged that looking to the very pitiable condition of the petitioner some time to vacate should be given to him. Mr. Dave was initially reluctant to give any time and he was ready to give at the most six months time. However looking to the circumstances I hold that two years time should be given from to-day to vacate the premises provided the usual undertaking is filed by the petitioner with this court within one month from to-day. If such an undertaking is not led the time to vacate as given above shall be deemed not to have been given. The usual indertaking would include the payment of arrears of rent and also it will be in the standard form prevalent in this court. Rule discharged. .