Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate for the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") and Sri A.K.Gupta, Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Agarwal, Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as "respondent"). 2. The only question, which need be considered in this case having arisen from proceedings is: Whether Courts below were justified in denying benefit of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once it is clear that Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") was not applicable to the building in dispute and the petitioner also has deposited entire arrears of rent etc., as contemplated in Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1882"), he was entitled for the benefit thereof and decree for ejectment ought not to have been passed. 4. Sri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, submitted that since there was no provision in written agreement permitting re-entry to the landlord and therefore in view of law laid down by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5091 of 2013 (Nizamuddin Vs. Smt. Bushara Khatoon & Ors.) decided on 30.01.2013 and Devi Prasad Sachan Vs. Special Judge (S.C. & S.T. Act) Kanpur Dehat & Ors., 2013(3) ADJ 683 , Section 114 was not applicable in the case in hand and could not have been invoked. 5. I find substance in the argument advance by counsel for the respondent. A copy of agreement containing terms and conditions executed between the parties is on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A careful reading thereof does not show existence of stipulation empowering landlord to re-enter the demised premises in case of breach of conditions regarding payment of rent. This is an essential conditions as observed in Ram Bali Pandey (Since deceased) through his Lrs' Vs. II Additional District Judge, Kanpur and other, 1998 (2) ARC 362 , wherein this Court has said: "...For the applicability of Section 114, existence of an agreement containing a stipulation empowering the landlord to re-enter in the demised premises in case of breach of a condition regarding payment of rent is essential." 6. The Apex Court has also laid down an exposition of law, consistent with above view, in Arun Khiamal Makhijani Vs. The Apex Court has also laid down an exposition of law, consistent with above view, in Arun Khiamal Makhijani Vs. Jamnadas C. Tuliani and Ors., (1989) 4 SCC 612 , and this is what has been reiterated and followed in Devi Prasad Sachan (supra) and Nizamuddin (supra). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the aforesaid authorities, neither could advance any submission to distinguish the aforesaid authorities nor could advance any submission to persuade this Court to take any other view. 8. I, therefore, find no reason to interference with the judgments, impugned in the writ petition, and aforesaid question is decided in affirmance holding that Courts below have rightly denied benefit of Section 114 of Act, 1882 to the petitioner as the same is not at all attracted in the case in hand. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, at this stage prayed that petitioner may be allowed sometime to vacate the premises in question. 10. Learned counsel for respondent-landlord stated that in case petitioner hands over vacant possession of premises in question within such time as directed by this Court, he would have no objection to such indulgence. 11. In the above facts and circumstances, 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 four months from today, the proceedings for execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed. 12. 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. 13. It is also provided that in case the petitioner-tenants after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question fail 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.25,000/- which shall also be recovered from petitioner-tenant alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises. 14. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is dismissed. _____________