JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari and Mr. Rastogi, for the respondent caveator. 2. Perused the judgments and decree under appeal. 3. In my considered opinion the controversy involved in the present second appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed summarily. 4. At the end of his argument the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Maheshwari urged that the appellant is a poor man and has no source of livelihood except the earning from hotel shop in dispute. He further urged that the appellant has been running his hotel over the disputed shop for a very long time and it would be very difficult for him to have an alternative accommodation so quickly, therefore, in the interest of justice he prayed that the appellant may be granted as much time as possible to remain in possession over the shop in dispute. 5. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into account humanitarian consideration I think it just and proper in the interest of justice to grant time upto 15th of December 2000 to the appellant to remain in possession over the shop in dispute provided he deposits the entire decretal amount before the learned trial court within one month from today and continues to pay montly mense profits month by month at the monthly rate of rent. The appellant is further directed to execute an undertaking before the learned trial court within the aforesaid period that after remaining in possession over the disputed shop for a period of upto the 15th of December 2000 he shall hand over vacant possession of the disputed shop to the decree holder landlord. 6. It is made clear that if the tenant-defendant-appellant fails to comply with any of the conditions enumerated hereinabove, the landlord-plaintiff-respondent shall be at liberty to execute the decree as envisaged under sub-sec. (9) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950.With the aforesaid observation, this second appeal is hereby dismissed summarily at admission stage.With Above Observation, Second Appeal Dismissed Summarily. *******