JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the contesting respondent even in the revised list. Perused the record. 2. The petition no.38317 of 2005 is directed against an appellate order dated 23.4.2005 by which the landlord's appeal against an order rejecting his release application has been partly allowed and one shop has been released in his favour. 3. It appears that the respondents-landlords were both in service in the Indian Army and on the retirement of respondent no.1 in 1998, he moved an application for release of the disputed two shops which were in the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of his personal need and also on the ground of the need of the co-landlord no.2 Jagdish Chander who was still serving in the Army. 4. After contest, the application was rejected against which the respondent preferred an appeal and the appeal has been partly allowed by releasing one shop out of the two shops in the name of Ram Chander holding that the need of respondent no. 2 Jagdish Chander was not established. 5. The connected writ petition no. 51772 of 2005 has been filed by Sri Jagdish Chander challenging that portion of the appellate order by which the release has been refused for the second shop. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has urged that during the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord had purchased the premises no.S-9/259, Nai Basti which consisted of a shop and thus his need stood satisfied and the appellate court has wrongly partly allowed the release application. It is further contended that there was no evidence on record to show that subsequently purchased shop was in occupation of the sitting tenant. 7. Assuming that the landlord did not prove that there was a sitting tenant, however, from the judgment, it is apparent that the appellate court has come to the conclusion after considering the evidence on record that the purchased premises lies in a blind lane which is not convenient for running a shop. A copy of the sale deed is also on record which shows that the aforesaid fact is fully established. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted. 8. For the reasons above, no case for interference is made out and accordingly writ petition no.38317 of 2005 is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of the sale deed is also on record which shows that the aforesaid fact is fully established. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted. 8. For the reasons above, no case for interference is made out and accordingly writ petition no.38317 of 2005 is hereby dismissed. 9. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition no.51772 of 2005. 10 .Heard counsel for the respondent. 11. The authority below has recorded a categorical finding of fact that no evidence was led to prove the need of Jagdish Chandra who after retirement had settled at Pune. No documentary evidence including in the nature of affidavit has been pointed out by which it can be said that the need of Jagdish Chandra was also established. Thus, no case for interference is made. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition no.51772 of 2005 is dismissed. 13. After the writ petition was dismissed, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time for giving undertaking to vacate the disputed premises within a reasonable time, as fixed by the Court. 14. An undertaking has been given on behalf of the petitioner through his counsel today that he would vacate the shop. 15. Accordingly, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed premises till 18th of June 2010. He would deposit the entire enhanced rent uptil 18th of June 2010 within a period of three weeks from today with the court below which shall be paid to the landlord. In case of default in paying the enhanced rent, the aforesaid protection will stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall be liable for eviction forthwith.