Shashi Kant Gupta, J.— 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 4.4.2012 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri in SCC Revision No. 6 of 2003 upholding the order dated 18.8.2003 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mainpuri. 2. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the respoindents-landlord which was registered as SCC Suit No. 1 of 1999. The trial court, on the basis of material evidence available on record, by order dated 18.8.2003 decreed the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed a SCC Revision No. 6 of 2003 which was dismissed. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount at the first date of hearing, as such, he was entitled for the benefit provided under Section 20 (4) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act"). 4. A perusal of the record shows that the entire entire amount as provided under Section 20 (4) of the Act was not deposited by the petitioner. Both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact holding that the entire amount as provided under Section 20 (4) of the Act due to landlord was not deposited by the petitioner. The courts below have also recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner was defaulter in payment of rent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously challenged the findings recorded by the courts below. 6. The courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while allowing the release application of the landlord. The findings recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous consideration or irrelevant material. this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the courts below is manifestly illegal and perverse. 7. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, I do not finding any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned in the writ petition. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed . 10. 7. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, I do not finding any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned in the writ petition. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed . 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least six months' time may be granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises in dispute so that in the meantime he may be able to search out some other suitable accommodation. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord did not raise any objection to it. 11. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute provided he gives his undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that he will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the respondent-landlord without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today and will pay the entire decretal amount including the damages within 4 weeks from today before the trial court. It is further provided that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 500/- per month as rent/ damages w.e.f. April 2012 for use and occupation of the disputed premises by 7th of each succeeding month before the trial court for immediate payment to the landlord. 12. In case of default in compliance of the aforementioned conditions, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated and the respondent-landlord will be at liberty to evict the petitioner with the aid of the police force. _