DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 31. 8. 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Courts by which the suit filed by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment from the premises in dispute was decreed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 11. 1. 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Allahabad by which the Revision filed by the tenant for setting aside the aforesaid order under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 has been dismissed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri T. P. Singh, assisted by Sri Siddhartha Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the landlord-respondents Nos. 3 to 5. ( 2 ) THE suit had been filed with the allegation that a notice dated 17. 7. 2004 had been sent to. the petitioner demanding arrears of rent from 1. 1. 1999 till 30. 6. 2004 and by the said notice, the tenancy was also terminated on the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice. This notice was duly served upon the defendant on 24. 7. 2004 but despite service of notice and expiry of the aforesaid period, the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and nor did he vacate the premises. A written statement was filed on behalf of the tenant. It was stated that the tenancy was @ Rs. 15/- per month and not Rs. 40/-per month as alleged in the plaint. It was further stated that rent upto September, 2005 has been paid and there was no arrears of rent. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1. 11. 1999 to 30. 6. 2004 and nor did he deposit the amount on the first date of hearing. The Revisional Court has confirmed this finding. These are findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on appraisal of evidence and the learned Counsel for the petitioner also did not dispute that the rent from 1. 11. 1999 to 30. 6. 2004 was not deposited. In such circumstances, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. These are findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on appraisal of evidence and the learned Counsel for the petitioner also did not dispute that the rent from 1. 11. 1999 to 30. 6. 2004 was not deposited. In such circumstances, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. ( 4 ) IN the end learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that three months may be given to the petitioner to handover peaceful possession of the disputed premises to the landlord. ( 5 ) SRI Siddhartha Singh learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 submitted that the Court may grant the aforesaid time provided the petitioner gives the usual undertaking within three weeks from today before the Court below. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner shall not be ejected from the premises in dispute for a period of three months from today provided the petitioner gives the following undertaking before the Court below within three weeks from today :- 1. That the petitioner shall deposit the amount awarded within a period of one month from today before the Judge Small Cause Courts, if the same has not been deposited. 2. That the petitioner shall continue to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month up to the date he hands-over the possession of the disputed premises to the landlord. 3. That the petitioner shall not induct any other person in the premises. 4. That the petitioner shall hand-over peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord on or before the expiry of three months. ( 7 ) IT is made clear that in the event the petitioner fails to give the undertaking within the aforesaid period or fails to comply with any of the terms of the undertaking, then in that case, it will be open to the landlord to get the decree executed. Petition Dismissed. .