Rajiv Sharma, J.;- List is being revised. Neither learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 and 3 is present nor there is any request for passing over or adjournment of the case. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 6.12.1994 passed by the opposite party No.1 and the order dated 10.10.1991, passed by the opposite party No. 2 as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that opposite parties No. 3-landlord let out a shop in question to the petitioner in the year 1974 on a rent of Rs.40/- per month. According to the petitioner, opposite parties No. 3 filed a suit, bearing No. 54 of 1978, under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question. Notice was issued. In reply thereof, the petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. The Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Kheri, vide order dated 24.10.1985, while observing that petitioner was the real tenant of the opposite party No.3 and he was not sub-tenant of opposite party No.4-Sri Rajendra Mohan Seth, dismissed the suit. Against the order dated 24.10.1985, the opposite parties No. 3 filed a revision, which was registered as Revision No. 23 of 1981. The appellate Court, vide order dated 8.3.1983, allowed the revision and set-aside the order dated 24.10.1985 and remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the suit afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering the documents. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 3140 of 1984, which was dismissed by the order dated 8.8.1989. However, it was observed that the Prescribed Authority would consider and decide the same on merits on the basis of material on record and the attending circumstances without being influenced by any observation contained in the judgment of the revisional court insofar as the merits of the case is concerned. However, it was observed that the Prescribed Authority would consider and decide the same on merits on the basis of material on record and the attending circumstances without being influenced by any observation contained in the judgment of the revisional court insofar as the merits of the case is concerned. On remand, the Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties' Counsel, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment against both defendants, namely, Sri Rajendra Mohan Seth holding him chief tenant and the petitioner as his sub-tenant of the shop in question and also for the arrears of rent, vide order dated 10.10.1991. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision and the opposite party No.1-revisional authority, vide order dated 6.12.1994, rejected the revision. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the Court below while passing the impugned order ignored Rule 16 and Rule 17 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant try to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the appellate authority suffer from the manifest error of law, but has failed to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the appellate authority in any way either perverse, or are suffering from the manifest error of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant further submitted that the view taken by the appellate authority are such on which no reasonable person can come. The aforesaid contention of learned Counsel for the tenant cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash : AIR2004SC3892, wherein the Apex Court has held that High Court will not appreciate evidence like an appellate court by re-appreciating or re-evaluating the evidence while exercising supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Lastly, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that since the petitioner-tenant is in possession of the shop in question, therefore he may be granted reasonable time to vacate the same. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Lastly, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that since the petitioner-tenant is in possession of the shop in question, therefore he may be granted reasonable time to vacate the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice, I direct that the petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the shop in question pursuant to the impugned order till 31.12.2012, provided: (1) petitioner-tenant furnishes an undertaking before the prescribed authority within one month from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlord on or before 31.12.2012; and (2) petitioner-tenant pay to the landlord or deposit the entire arrears of rent/damages, if not already paid to the landlord or deposited before the prescribed authority, at the rate of rent till date within one month from today and continues to pay or deposit the same by first week of every succeeding month so long he remains in possession or till 31.12.2012, whichever is earlier. The landlord will be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited by the petitioner-tenant. (3) in the event of default of any of the conditions referred to above, it will be open to the respondent-landlord to get the order executed. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.