JUDGMENT R.B. Mehrotra, J. - The petitioner has challenged the order of Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad, dated 2nd May, 1986, decreeing Suit No. 113 of 1983 of the plaintiff respondent and the order passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 4th October, 1988 whereby the Eighth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dismissed the petitioner's revision filed against the judgment of Small Causes Court, Allahabad, dated 2nd May, 1986. 2. The necessary facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Small Causes Suit No. 113 of 1983 against the petitioner-defendant on the ground that the petitioner-defendant has wilfully defaulted in payment of rent and has not paid rent since 1st October, 1930 till the date of filing of the suit. The suit was contended by the petitioner defendant on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff-respondent is mala fide, as the plaintiff-respondent had never been issuing receipt and the rent was being paid in cash without issuance of any receipt and the petitioner-tenant throughout had been paying rent right till January 1982, on plaintiff's refusal to accept the said rent the petitioner sent Money Order in February 1982 which the respondent landlord refused to accept. Thereafter the petitioner continued to deposit rent in the proceedings under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Therefore, the petitioner has not committed any default in payment of rent. 3. The controversy in the suit was as to whether rent had been paid from 1st August, 1980 to January 1982 as claimed by the petitioner-tenant. Both the Courts below have considered the evidence of the parties at length and in great detail and have arrived at a clear finding that the landlord having denied receiving of rent between 1st August, 1980 to January, 1982 it was obligatory upon the tenant to have proved payment of rent by some cogent evidence and held that the tenant had utterly failed to prove payment of rent for the aforesaid period. Both the Courts below disbelieved the statement of the petitioner-tenant that he had paid rent for the aforesaid period and believed the case of the respondent-landlord evaluating the evidence on record that he did not receive rent for the disputed period. 4. Both the Courts below disbelieved the statement of the petitioner-tenant that he had paid rent for the aforesaid period and believed the case of the respondent-landlord evaluating the evidence on record that he did not receive rent for the disputed period. 4. Sri Murlidhar, Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate that the Courts below have recorded a perverse finding in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner-tenant did not pay rent till January 1982. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the finding recorded by the both Courts below are so palpably wrong that any reasonable man cannot accept the same to be correct as such these findings are liable to be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. I have carefully considered and gone through the record of the case but I could not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the Courts below on the point of non-payment of rent by the petitioner-tenant. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Courts below are either patently perverse or palpably wrong. The Courts below have laboured to consider the evidence of the parties and have arrived at a conclusion on the basis of material on record that the petitioner-tenant has wilfully failed to pay rent from 1st August, 1980 to January, 1982. On the basis of evidence on record the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted under Section 20(2) of the Act for non-payment of rent. 6. Sri Murlidhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner then contended that in the present case the first notice of demand was sent by the landlord on 1.3.1982, to which the tenant replied that in the envelop sent to the petitioner-tenant there is no letter and only empty envelop was sent to the petitioner-tenant. Thereafter second notice was sent by the respondent-landlord on October, 1982 and the suit was filed by the respondent-landlord on the basis of notice sent in October 1982. It has been submitted that the conduct of the respondent-landlord waiting for six months in filing suit was most unnatural and the case of the respondent-landlord should not have been believed on the said basis. It has been submitted that the conduct of the respondent-landlord waiting for six months in filing suit was most unnatural and the case of the respondent-landlord should not have been believed on the said basis. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that it is impossible to believe that the landlord will wait for demanding the rent for a period of almost two years without any rhyme or reason, particularly, in view of the facts of the case that when no receipt was being issued and the rent was being paid in cash and was being accepted by the landlord in cash. 7. Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, Senior Advocate, ably assisted by Sri Dhruv Narain, Advocate have contested the aforesaid preposition and have pointed out that all these aspects of the matter have been fully considered by the Courts below and there is no justification for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for both the parties I am satisfied that the petitioner-tenant has not been able to make out any case on the basis of which findings of fact recorded by the Courts below can be interfered with, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, I dismiss this petition. 9. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the Counsel for the parties on the question of granting time to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises. I direct that the decree of eviction passed against the petitioner will not be given affect to till 30th June, 1991 provided the petitioner furnishes an undertaking to this Court within a period of two weeks from today on the following terms : (1) That the petitioner will peacefully hand over the possession of the premises, subject matter of Suit No. 113 of 1983 filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad, Dr. G.M. Gopal v. Rameshwar Nath Singh, to the respondent on or before 30th June, 1991. (2) That the petitioner will deposit decretal amount in the trial Court which the respondent-landlord will be entitled to withdraw unconditionally within one month from today subject to adjustment, if any, of amount already deposited or paid by him to the respondent-landlord. G.M. Gopal v. Rameshwar Nath Singh, to the respondent on or before 30th June, 1991. (2) That the petitioner will deposit decretal amount in the trial Court which the respondent-landlord will be entitled to withdraw unconditionally within one month from today subject to adjustment, if any, of amount already deposited or paid by him to the respondent-landlord. The petitioner will clear off all the arrears of rent or mesne profit due against the petitioner regarding premises in dispute within one month from today and if the respondent-landlord refuses to accept them the said amount will be deposited before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad, in Suit No. 113 of 1983 within the aforesaid period. (3) That the petitioner will continue to pay to the respondent-landlord the amount equal to monthly rent for use and occupation of the premises in dispute on 10th of each succeeding calendar month. In case the respondent-landlord refuses to accept the same, the same will be deposited before the Judge, Small Causes Court, by 15th of every calendar month. (4) That the petitioner will not hand over possession of the premises in dispute to anybody else except the respondent-landlord. It is made clear that the undertaking given by the petitioner is an under taking given to this Court and any violation of the undertaking will be violation of the direction given by this Court and will amount to contempt of this Court. It is also being made clear that the time granted for vacating the premises by this judgment will stand automatically vacated in case the petitioner fails to file the undertaking within a period of two weeks from today or commits default of any of the conditions of the undertaking, indicated above. 10. With above observation the writ petition is dismissed. 11. The parties shall bear their own costs. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days.