ORDER : This appeal at the instance of the tenant has been directed against the judgment dated November 24, 1981 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court for eviction of the appellant. 2. Late Smt. Gyasibai, widow of Ram Chand had brought a suit against the appellant for his eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The two sons of Ram Chand, namely, Ram Swaroop and Bhagwati Prasad were impleaded as proforma defendants in the said suit. The appellant contested the suit by contending that he was not the tenant of Late Gyasibai and that he had obtained the house on rent from the aforementioned two sons of Ram Chand. He also took the plea that he has been making payment of rent to the two sons and was not in arrears of rent. The trial Court dismissed the suit. During the pendency of the first appeal Gyasibai expired and Ram Swaroop was brought on record as her legal representative and was transposed as appellant. The first appellate Court recorded a finding that the house in the suit had fallen to the share of late Smt. Gyasibai on partition and that she was the land-lady of the house in suit. The first appellate Court decreed the suit by holding that the appellant was in arrears of rent. These findings have been further affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was not established that the appellant was a tenant of Smt. Gyasibai and that he was a tenant of the two sons. We are afraid this contention cannot be accepted in view of the findings of the two Courts below and such finding of fact is not open to challenge before this Court in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the appellant had deposited all the arrears of rent and therefore, he is entitled for condonation of delay in depositing the same. Having regard to the findings recorded by the High Court in paragraph 4 judgment we find that the appellant does not deserve condonation of delay in depositing the rent. 5. In these facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Having regard to the findings recorded by the High Court in paragraph 4 judgment we find that the appellant does not deserve condonation of delay in depositing the rent. 5. In these facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. We, however, direct that the appellant shall not be dispossessed from the suit accommodation till December 31, 1995 subject to his furnishing the usual undertaking within four weeks from today.