JUDGMENT Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. Heard Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The controversy in the present case relates to House no.436 (old 428) Amarnath Colony, Civil Lines, City, Pargana, Post office, Tahsil and District Unnao. The said house belongs to respondent nos. 4 to 8 in which the petitioner is a tenant. 3. Initially the landlord has filed a SCC Suit no. 19 of 2001( Rajesh Nigam and others Vs. Ram Jeevan Yadav) for arrear of rent and eviction which was allowed by order darted 27.7.2004 passed by Civil Judge( Junior division) Unnao . The said order was challenged by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act,1887, by the judgment and order dated 3.4.2006 Additional District Judge, Unnao had dismissed the revision. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2004 passed by Civil Judge ( Junior Divison) Unnao and the order dated 3.4.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Unnao , the petitioner has challenged the same by way of Writ Petition No. 86 (R/C) of 2006, Ram Jeevan Yadav Vs. Smt. Shanti Nigam and others and on 11.9.2008, this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, had passed the following orders:- "Undoubtedly, the petition was entertained on 10.8.2006 and there is no order regarding deposition of rent. This Court has not considered the question as to what is the rent and what is the market value of the property and a due consideration has to be given to the landlord, who has been denied from using and occupation of the property in dispute because of the pendency of the instant writ petition since August, 2006. At this juncture, Sri A.S.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he maybe allowed a week's time to seek instructions from his client regarding payment of rent at the market rate or regarding vacating the premises in a reasonable period , subject to agreement with the other contesting party, i.e. landlord. Put up on 23.9.2008 for hearing on admission." 5. However, from the perusal of the record of Writ Petition No. 86(R/C) of 2006 , it transpires that thereafter the matter was not heard subsequently the said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.8.2009 . 6. Further, in the meantime, respondent nos. Put up on 23.9.2008 for hearing on admission." 5. However, from the perusal of the record of Writ Petition No. 86(R/C) of 2006 , it transpires that thereafter the matter was not heard subsequently the said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.8.2009 . 6. Further, in the meantime, respondent nos. 4 to 8 (landlord) has filed the execution case on 16.5.2006 which was registered as SCC Execution Case no. 3 of 2006, the proceedings of the execution case was stayed by this Court by order dated 17.8.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 86(R/C) of 2006, subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 20.8.2009. 7. Thereafter in the execution case petitioner filed his objection on 5.1.2009, after hearing the parties the civil Judge ( Junior Division) Unnao by order dated 6.1.2010 allowed the same. 8. Order dated 6.1.2010 passed by the Civil Judge ( Junior Division) Unnao, the petitioner has filed revision before opposite party no.1, the same was partly allowed by order dated 25.1.2010. 9. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2010 and 25.1.2010 passed by opposite party nos. 2 and 1 respectively ( Annexure nos. 14 and 16 to the writ petition ) the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner . 10. At this stage, Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner in order to vacate the premises in question and the petition may be disposed of accordingly. 11. Sri R.N. Tilhari learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 4 to 8 has no objection to the aforesaid proposal. 12. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into consideration that SCC Suit was filed in the year 2001 and thereafter the same was allowed by order darted 27.7.2004 and the revision filed against the said order was also dismissed on3.4.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Unnao and thereafter the execution proceedings has also taken place. The interest of justice will sub serve if the petitioner is allowed some time to vacate the premises in question. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is allowed to vacate the premises on or before 31st October, 2010 and shall hand over the same to the landlord. The interest of justice will sub serve if the petitioner is allowed some time to vacate the premises in question. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is allowed to vacate the premises on or before 31st October, 2010 and shall hand over the same to the landlord. However during the intervening period , the petitioner shall pay rent/damages for retaining the premises by 7th of each month. 15. It is further provided that the petitioner shall file an affidavit in this regard, before the executing court within a period of four weeks from today. 16. With the above observations and directions , the writ petition is finally disposed of . 17. No order as to costs.