JUDGMENT Hon’ble Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard learned Counsels for the petitioners and contesting respondent. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. The petitioners are tenants of the disputed shop No. B-11 on the first floor situated in Gupta Complex, 161 Nehru Road Sadar Bazar, Lucknow, on monthly rent of Rs. 660/-. The tenant was in arrears of rent, which was not deposited since 1.8.2001 despite repeated request. The tenancy was consequently terminated by means of registered notice dated 26.3.2002 under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act. Despite receipt of notice, rent was not tendered hence, the suit was instituted in the Court of Judge Small Causes. 4. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners is that after institution of the suit, the tenant deposited Rs. 11,500/- on 4.12.2002 and according to the petitioners, the tenant carries on business of Ready-made Garments and this is only source of their livelihood. It is further submitted that the tenants have tendered huge amount of premium before taking over the possession of shop in question and at the relevant time it was agreed between the parties that if the tenants are unable to deposit the rent and fall in arrears, then the rent due will be adjusted from the amount already deposited towards premium. 5. Evidence was led. The Judge Small Causes Courts, came to a conclusion that the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is not applicable. Notice dated 26.3.2002 was held to be valid and served on the plaintiff. Issue No. 1 was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for damages and eviction. Issue No. 4 was whether there was default in making payment of arrears of rent. Issue No. 5 was whether the plaintiff had received Rs. 95,000/- as security on 28.10.1992 which was liable to be adjusted towards arrears. 6. Finding of the trial Court on all these issues are against the tenants. Counsel for the tenant has emphatically submitted that the Court below recorded perverse finding without taking into consideration the evidence, which was the receipt of premium, thus, the impugned judgment is vitiated and liable to be quashed. 7. Counsel for the landlady submits that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. 7. Counsel for the landlady submits that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, it is evident that both the Courts have held that the petitioners was in arrears of rent and the tenancy was terminated by means of valid notice. Since UP Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable in the instant case, the question of any relief under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 cannot be considered. Besides, the assertion that Rs. 95,000/- paid as premium/security, has been disbelieved by the two Courts below and the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered in writ jurisdiction. 9. Counsel for the tenant has brought on record a receipt alleged to have been issued by the landlady in respect of the alleged premium money. The specific issue was framed on this question and the assertion that Rs. 95,000/- was paid to the landlady towards premium/security was not accepted by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court No. good or valid ground has been raised for quashing the impugned judgments. This Court cannot reappreciate or reappraise the evidence in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 11. In the end, Counsel for the petitioners prays that some time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the shop in question which is the only source of livelihood of the petitioners. 12. This prayer appears to be genuine. The petitioners are granted three months time to vacate the shop in question provided they furnish an undertaking along with affidavit before the trial Court within three weeks from today stating clearly that they will vacate the shop in question and handover peaceful possession of the same to the landlady on or before 15.12.2007, and further deposit damages at the rate of Rs. 660/- per month till the delivery of possession of shop in question to the landlady. 660/- per month till the delivery of possession of shop in question to the landlady. It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned above, this liberty granted by this Court shall automatically come to an end. —————