Judgment N.P. Gupta, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. In view of the urgency in the matter, at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties the appeal was heard on merits also today itself . 4. From perusal of the Judgment s of the two learned Courts below, it is clear that the decree in the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff and his family members has rightly been passed. The learned Courts below have also decided the question of comparative hardship and partial eviction against the appellant concurrently. Having gone through the findings, in my view, the findings are pure finding of fact, and are not vitiated on any of the grounds available under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. The appeal thus has no force, and is dismissed. 5. However, at the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant is given one year’s time to vacate the suit premises on the condition that the defendant gives an undertaking before the learned trial Court within one month from today that on or before the expiry of the above period, they will peacefully handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and that during this period, they will not, in any manner, transfer the possession of the suit premises to anybody. Likewise, the entire decretal amount, so also all arrears of rent, if any, shall be deposited by the appellants in the trial Court within one month from today and shall further continue to deposit amount equal to the monthly rent by way of damages for use and occupation by 15th of each succeeding month, till the actual delivery of possession. In case the appellant fails to comply with any of the above conditions, the respondent will become automatically entitled to execute the decree forthwith.