A. S. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) ). This civil revision application is filed by the present petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit against the judgment and order dated 16/10/1982 passed by the learned District Judge Valsad at Navsari in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 39 of 1982 dismissing the appeal filed against the order below Exh. 5 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Valsad in Regular Civil Suit No. 123/82 whereby the application for interim relief of the present petitioner was rejected. ( 2 ) ). The contentions raised in the suit by the present petitioner pertained to his alleged tenancy They rights in respect of the suit premises. The present petitioner claims in the suit that the suit premises were let out to him by the landlord respondent No. 4 herein and that the order of the Collector Valsad requiring the petitioner to vacate the suit premises on his being transferred from Valsad to Navsari is illegal void and inoperative in law. The petitioner had prayed for the interim stay of the operation of the said order of the Collector. ( 3 ) ). The Trial Court was satisfied that there was no evidence on the record of this case to show that the plaintiff had any tenancy right in respect of the suit premises and hence it refused to grant the interim relief as prayed for. The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court in the District Court. The District Court upheld the finding and decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner. It is against this order of dismissal of his appeal that the petitioner has come to this court in revision. ( 4 ) ). Mr. S. S. Belsare the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent No. 1 has not followed the procedure laid down for requisition of premises and that there is no legal and valid order of requisition in force and hence the petitioners occupation of the suit premises should be regard d as being by virtue of his tenancy rights independent of the requisition. Mr. Belsare has relied on a receipt purporting to have been issued by the landlord (present respon- dent No. 4) to show that there was a direct tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Mr. Belsare has relied on a receipt purporting to have been issued by the landlord (present respon- dent No. 4) to show that there was a direct tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Belsare has also relied on the letter dated 10-10-66 intimating to the present petitioner the factum of allotment of the suit premises with effect from 6/10/1966 ( 5 ) ). These contentions of Mr. Belsare are not based on sound proposition of law and therefore they cannot be accepted. Mr. Belsare has not been able to point out any evidence to show that the present petitioner had legally valid tenancy rights in his favour. Admittedly he claims tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises from January 1966 when the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948 (Act 33 of 1948) was in force in Valsad and that neither the landlord could have given the suit premises or land directly to the present petitioner nor could the present petitioner have legally taken it on rent in view of the provisions of the said Act and hence no legal tenancy could have come into existence in favour of the petitioner at the material time. Mr. Belsare has tried to show that intimation given by the landlord is not in the prescribed from and that the Government has not made an inquiry contemplated under sec. 6 of the Act and that there have been two successive orders of requisition-one passed in February 1966 and another in October 1966 Hence according to him the second requi- sition order is illegal and void. Mr. Belsare has also pointed out that the amount paid in respect of the house and occupation of the suit premises is referred to as compensation in the Act and not as rent; whereas the rent receipt has used the word rent. Suffice it to say that all these submissions of Mr. Belsare are outside the point. Any illegality or irregularity in respect of the requisition proceedings would not establish the pre-existing tenancy rights of the present petitioner. Hence there is absolutely no ground whatsoever to hold that the concurrent finding of the two courts below is illegal or improper. The revision therefore is rejected as there is no substance in the matter At this stage Mr. Any illegality or irregularity in respect of the requisition proceedings would not establish the pre-existing tenancy rights of the present petitioner. Hence there is absolutely no ground whatsoever to hold that the concurrent finding of the two courts below is illegal or improper. The revision therefore is rejected as there is no substance in the matter At this stage Mr. Belsare requested that some time may be given to the present petitioner to vacate the suit premises to obviate hardship which he may have to face. The Court was inclined to grant some time and even the landlord (respondent No. 4) showed his willingness to grant some time on condition that the present petitioner files an under- taking in this court to the effect that he is exclusively in possession of the suit premises and that he will hand over the possession of the said premises on the date fixed by this court and that he will in the meantime not transfer the same to any other person and will continue to pay compensation till he hands over possession. The petitioner is not willing to file such an undertaking. It is quite obvious that the petitioner has in mind some other legal remedy that may be available to him and hence he does not want to file this undertaking which this court cannot compel him to do. Hence there is no question of granting him any time. The interim stay granted by this court is vacated. In the circumstances of the case rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Application dismissed. .