JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. N.K. Rastogi and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Perused the judgment of the learned trial court decreeing the suit and judgment passed by the learned first appellate court affirming the said judgment. 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 it, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed summarily. 4. At the end of his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. N.K. Rastogi urged that the appellants are poor persons and have no source of livelihood except the earning from business. He further urged that the appellants have been running business over the disputed shop for a very long time and it would be very difficult for them to have an alternative accommodation so quickly, therefore, in the interest of justice, he prayed that the appellants 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 31st July, 2000 to the appellants to remain to possession over the shop in dispute provided they deposit the entire decretal amount before learned trial court within one month from today and continue to pay monthly mesne profits month by month at the monthly rate of rent. The appellants are 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 upto 31st July, 2000 they shall hand over vacant possession of the disputed shop to the decree-holder land-lord. 6. It is made clear that if the tenant-appellants fail 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 observations, the instant second appeal is hereby dismissed summarily at admission stage.Second Appeal Summarily Dismissed. *******