M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner being the original appellant No. 3 and defendant No. 4 has brought under challenge the Judgment and Decree dated 31st August, 1977 passed by the learned Judge of the Ahmedabad Small Causes Court in H. R. P. Suit No. 2298 of 1973 and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the said Court on 15th October, 1980 in Civil appeal No. 373 of 1977, in this Revision Application under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the rent Act" ). ( 2 ) ). The plaintiffs being the respondents No. 1 to 4 had filed the aforesaid H. RP. Suit on various grounds inter alia on the ground that die defendants No. 1 and 2 had sub-let, transferred and/or assigned the suit premises to defendant No. 3 and also claimed possession on the same ground alleging that during the pendency of the suit the suit premises again came to be transferred unlawfully to defendant No. 4 (petitioner herein ). The learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence adduced before him came to the conclusion that the defendants No. 1 and 2 had sub-let, transferred and/or assigned the suit premises to defendant No. 4 during the pendency of the suit and passed Decree for eviction of the suit premises as per the aforesaid judgment and Decree. The learned trial judge also passed Decree on the ground of arrears of rent invoking the provision contained in Section 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act The Appellate Bench of the Ahmedabad small Causes Court confirmed the said Decree on both the grounds and, therefore, petitioner who has been alleged to be the transferee of the suit premises during the pendency of the suit is before this Court in this Revision Application as stated above. ( 3 ) ). After some amount of submissions made by Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned Advocate for the petitioner, suggestion was made by the petitioner through its partner Shri rajmkant Kantilal, who is present in the Court, that if time to vacate the suil premises to the extent of about four years is granted then he would vacate the suit premises peacefully and would abide by the conditions imposed by the Court. Mr. Mr. A. J. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the first four respondents (plaintiffs) gracefully submitted that if usual undertaking is given by the petitioner and if reasonable time is granted, the Decree of the Courts below may be modified. ( 4 ) ). Under the aforesaid circumstances following order is required to be passed: the Decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is maintained with a rider that petitioner is granted time to vacate the suit premises upto 31st january, 1998 on condition that the petitioner through its partner files an undertaking before this Court setting out usual terms including the term with regard to not transferring or assigning the suit premises or parting with possession thereof to anybody in any manner, on or before 18. 1. 1995. Subject to the aforesaid modification Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .