Anil Kumar, J.;- Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri L.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, writ petition is heard finally today. Facts in brief of the present case are that controversy in the present case relates to a shop situated in house No. 278/113, Saluja Niwas, Arya Nagar, Naka Hindola, Aishbag Road, Lucknow and Dr. Preetam Singh is owner/landlord under the tenancy of Sri Radhey Lal. Landlord moved an application for release of shop under the tenancy of respondent in the month of January, 2005, accordingly a P.A. Case 7 of 2007 registered before Prescribed Authority/1st Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Lucknow. Prescribed Authority after considering the matter on merit vide order dated 22.05.2010 (Annexure-3) allowed release application holding therein that respondent/landlord has retired from services six years back, as such his need to get shop vacated is genuine and bona fide in comparison to tenant/petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, tenant/petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 38 of 2010, Radhey Lal Vs. Dr. Preetam Singh Saluja) under Section 22 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, dismissed vide order dated 7.02.2011 by appellate authority. Hhence present writ petition filed, thereby challenging the order dated 07.02.2011 passed in Rent Appeal No. 38 of 2010 (Annexure-1) and order dated 22.05.2010 (Annexure-3) passed in P.A. Case No. 7 of 2007 by Prescribed Authority/1st Additional Small Cause Court, Lucknow. Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, on the basis of instructions received from his client submits that if six months time is granted to his client to vacate the shop then in that circumstances he will not press the writ petition engaging attention of this Court. Sri L.K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents has no objection to the abovesaid proposal/request made on behalf of tenant/petitioner. In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, without entering into merit to decide factual controversy involved in the present case, the writ petition is dismissed with the observations that the petitioner/tenant shall retain shop and give peaceful possession of the same to the landlord/respondent (Dr. Preetam Singh ) by 30th of September, 2011 provided he file an affidavit in this regard before Prescribed Authority within a period of fifteen days from today and also pay rent for the said period at the rate of Rs. 4,00/- (Rs. Preetam Singh ) by 30th of September, 2011 provided he file an affidavit in this regard before Prescribed Authority within a period of fifteen days from today and also pay rent for the said period at the rate of Rs. 4,00/- (Rs. Four Hundred), which is paid by him on or before 7th day of every month. In the event of default, landlord/respondent have liberty to take due course of law to evict the petitioner/tenant. With the above observations, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.