ORDER : R.S. Pathak, CJI. 1. These appeals by four tenants arise out of proceedings for their ejectment from the Jat Dharamashala in Hardwar. Individual suits were filed by the Jat Dharamashala against four tenants. There was a suit against a fifth tenant with which we are not concerned. The suits were decreed against the tenants by the Prescribed Authority, Hardwar by an order directing their eviction but in the case of the tenant, Nihal Singh there was a further direction that the Plaintiff would give one of its newly built shops to him for his business after its reconstruction. Corresponding appeals were filed by the tenants before the learned Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and the appeals were concluded by an order which while directing the eviction of the tenants and affirming the order of the trial court that Nihal Singh be allotted an alternative shop in the new building, directed also that Dharam Chand Rajpal should be so accommodated. 2. The tenants filed writ petitions in the High Court, and on 28 August 1978, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The High Court held that excepting Dharam Chand Rajpal the remaining tenants had alternative accommodation available to them and therefore they would not be put to any loss if possession of their shops was taken by the Dharamashala and the building reconstructed. The High Court reserved for Dharam Chand Rajpal a right to be let a new shop on the ground floor after the new building had been completed by the Dharamashala. 3. After bearing learned Counsel for the parties we find no force in these appeals except to the extent mentioned below. 4. The High Court erred in displacing the finding of the courts below that Nihal Singh was entitled to the allotment of a shop in the reconstructed building. That direction was made by the trial court and affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, and was not questioned in appeal by the Respondent-Dharamashala. The finding and consequent direction in favour of Nihal Singh had become final, and should not have been disturbed by the High Court. In the result, while the appeal of Nihal Singh is allowed to the extent mentioned above, the remaining appeals are dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 5. The finding and consequent direction in favour of Nihal Singh had become final, and should not have been disturbed by the High Court. In the result, while the appeal of Nihal Singh is allowed to the extent mentioned above, the remaining appeals are dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 5. We direct that the decree for eviction will not be enforced until 30 June 1989, provided the Appellants furnish respective undertakings within four weeks from today in the usual terms.