Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Called in revised. Sri Satish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners is present but none appeared on behalf of respondents though the names of Sri C.S. Sharma and Sri Ravi Sahu, Advocates are printed in the cause list as counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar allowing respondent-landlord application for release of premise in question and appellate order dated 21.04.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar dismissing petitioners' Rent Appeal No. 45 of 2007 confirming Trial Court's order. 3. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and learned counsel for the petitioners finding it difficult to assail the same, at the outset stated that petitioners may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premise in question. 4. Considering the above facts and circumstances I find it appropriate that petitioners may be allowed six months' time to vacate the premise in question. Sri Satish Chandra, Advocate appearing for petitioners also stated that petitioners undertake to vacate the premise within aforesaid period. 5. 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 six 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. However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord(s) 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, he 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. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. _____________