ORDER : 1. This Court while issuing notice on special leave petition passed the following order on 31.10.1991: “Issue notice on the Special Leave Petition as well as on the application for condonation of delay returnable in four weeks to consider whether any reasonable time for eviction may be given. In the meantime, if the petitioner is in possession, his possession will not be disturbed. Liberty to serve by dasti in addition to normal service. It is clarified that no further time will be given for effecting service.” 2. Subsequently, it appears that there arose dispute as to whether which party is the landlord of the premises. It further appears that on account of the said dispute leave was granted in this matter on 17.8.1992. 3. It is relevant to notice that this Court while granting leave did not modify the restricted notice issued earlier by this Court. Therefore, the scope of the present appeal is confined only to the limited question as to whether some reasonable time be granted to the appellant to vacate the premises. The SLP was filed in the year 1991 and by the interim order granted by this Court the appellant continued in possession of the premises for over nine years. However, we have also looked into the merits of the case. The status of the appellant is only that of a licensee and not a lessee. We are, therefore, of the view that the appeal thus has no merit. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal, but without any costs. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant thus urged that in case the appellant is required to vacate the premises immediately he shall be put to great hardship. Therefore, some time may be granted to vacate the premises. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that he has no objection if the appellant is directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the respondent. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the appellant shall not be dispossessed from the premises till 31st June, 2001 provided he files usual undertaking before this Court within three weeks from today. The appellant shall neither sub-let nor create any third party right in respect of the premises. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the appellant shall not be dispossessed from the premises till 31st June, 2001 provided he files usual undertaking before this Court within three weeks from today. The appellant shall neither sub-let nor create any third party right in respect of the premises. The appellant shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the contesting respondent-Committee on or before the expiry of the period mentioned above. 5. Shri V.J. Francis, learned counsel appearing for the Committee prayed that the Committee may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in pursuance of the order of this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that the respondent-Committee may be permitted to withdraw the amount subject to the result of the decision by the Civil Court. In view of what has been urged by counsel for the appellant, we direct that the respondent-Committee would be entitled to withdraw the amount subject to the result of the decision by the Civil Court.