Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. (2) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgments and orders dated 17.2.1994, 22.4.1994, 11.7.1995 and 4.12.1996. It appears that the respondent No. 3, Masood Muzaffar, filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the defendant-respondents No. 4 and 5 as well as the petitioner who happened to be the sub-tenant in the building in question. Summonses were issued to the defendants. The defendants even after the service of summonses did not put in appearance nor filed any written statement. It was on 23.3.1992 that the suit was directed to proceed ex parte. On an application made by the defendant respondents, the order to proceed ex-parte, dated 23.3.1992, was set aside by order dated 7.7.1992. Challenging the validity of the said order, the respondent No. 3 filed a revision. The revision filed by the said respondent was allowed by order dated 17.2.1994. It may be noted that the validity of the said order was thereafter not challenged and the order dated 17.2.1994 has become final. The trial Court thereafter proceeded ex parte and decreed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1994. Challenging the validity of the said decree, the tenants-in-chief, the respondents second set, filed an application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1994. The said application was ultimately dismissed on 22.2.1995. The respondents second set did not challenge the validity of the said order. It was on 7.4.1995 that the present petitioner who was a pro forma defendant, filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by judgment and order dated 11.7.1995. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Court below. The Court below also dismissed the said revision by the judgment and order dated 4.12.1996. Hence, the present petition. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in the judgment dated 22.4.1994 reasons/findings were not recorded as required under the law, therefore, the said judgment was liable to be set aside. It was also urged that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the orders dated 11.7.1995 and 4.12.1996, referred to above, were illegal and are liable to be quashed. It was also urged that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the orders dated 11.7.1995 and 4.12.1996, referred to above, were illegal and are liable to be quashed. (4) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the tenants-in-chief, i.e. the respondents second set, did not challenge the validity of the order dated 22.2.1995. The said order has, therefore, become final and it was not open to the petitioner to either file the application for setting aside the ex parte decree or to file the present petition inasmuch as he was simply a sub-tenant whose fate was to be determined alongwith the fate of the chief tenant. The chief tenant having conceded to the order dated 22.2.1995, the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree and the revision before the Court below, were legally not maintainable. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. (5) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly conceded that the provision of Section 17 of the Act were not complied with by the petitioner. The restoration application filed by him was, thus, legally not maintainable. The statement made by learned Counsel for the petitioner itself is sufficient to dismiss this petition. In my opinion, the petitioner also has got no right to file the present petition as the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court against the chief tenant have become final. The Court below was also right in holding that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings of the case in the trial Court but he deliberately did not appear. Further, the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act have not been complied with and the decretal amount has not been deposited nor any security was furnished before the trial Court as required under said section. Further, the Court below was also right in holding that the application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. The findings recorded by the Court below are findings of fact which cannot be challenged in a writ petition. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Further, the Court below was also right in holding that the application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. The findings recorded by the Court below are findings of fact which cannot be challenged in a writ petition. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. (6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the building in question and hand over vacant possession. Mr. S.U. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent, has got no objection if two months time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the building in question subject to the condition he furnishes an undertaking in writing before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today to the effect that on expiry of the aforesaid period or before that, he shall hand over the vacant possession of the building in question to the respondent No. 3 and shall also pay the amount of rent of the said building for the period he remains in occupation of the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner agreed to it. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall not be ejected from the building in question for a period of two months from today subject to the condition the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in writing before the trial Court within two weeks from today to the effect that he shall vacate the building in question and deliver vacant possession to respondent No. 3 immediately on expiry of two months or before and that he shall pay the rent for the period he remains in occupation of the building in question. (7) Subject to what has been stated above the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. (8) A copy of this order may be issued to learned Counsel for the parties within three days, on payment of usual charges. Petition dismissed.