Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri R.L. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manish Dev Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by Prescribed Authority decreeing the suit of respondent-landlord for eviction of petitioners from premises in question holding that application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 filed by respondent-landlord on the ground of bona fide need is genuine and comparative hardship also lie in favour of landlord; and, the appellate order dated 07.07.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Bareilly dismissing appeal of petitioners. 3. Learned counsel of the petitioners having failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record in impugned orders, at the outset, stated that this court may grant some indulgence to petitioners-tenants by providing some reasonable time to vacate the premises in question. He agreed to vacate the premises in question within three months from today. 4. Sri Manish Dev Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent-landlord stated that the landlord has also suffered sufficiently and though in principle did not object the request of petitioners for granting reasonable time but requested this Court that in ascertaining this time the Court may take into consideration the hardship and difficulties already suffered by respondents in commencing, conducting and pursuing the proceedings in question. 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also with the consent of learned counsel for the parties I find it appropriate that petitioners may be allowed three months' time to vacate the premise in question. Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate appearing for petitioners also stated that petitioners undertake to vacate the premise within aforesaid period. 6. In view of the above, it is provided that petitioners, if file an affidavit within ten days from today before the trial court containing an undertaking that they shall vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord-respondent within three months from today, execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed. It is also made clear that the petitioners-tenants shall continue to pay rent of premise in question to respondent-landlord month-to-month. It is also made clear that the petitioners-tenants shall continue to pay rent of premise in question to respondent-landlord month-to-month. However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord to proceed for execution of impugned orders immediately thereafter in accordance with law. It is also provided that in case the petitioners-tenants after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question failed to comply with any of the conditions, as aforesaid, they shall be liable to pay for such non compliance of pious undertaking given to the Court an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall also be recovered from petitioners-tenants alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is dismissed. _