JUDGMENT M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order dated 28.2.2013 in G.O.Ms.No. 33, Tourist, Culture and Charitable Endowment (RES-2) Department on the file of the first respondent, under which, the revision petition filed by the writ petitioner, against the order of eviction passed by the Joint Commissioner, was rejected. 2. According to the petitioner, his father S. Suresh Babu and one M. Sivalingam constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Usha Fancy Centre and the said firm was running the business at No. 438-D, Villa Shop Building, Kottaimariamman Koil Temple Compound, Salem District in the year 1985. Since they find it difficult to get allotment in the name of partnership firm, the allotment order was obtained in the name of one of the partners, viz., M. Sivalingam and he got relieved from the partnership firm and the petitioner’s father became the sole proprietor of the said firm and according to the petitioner, he is the son of S. Suresh Babu and his father alone was running the business right from 12.3.1987. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner would further contend that the eviction proceedings were initiated by the second respondent against his father, viz., S. Suresh Babu on the ground that he is an encroacher. But due to ill-ness, he could not follow up the case and therefore, his father was set ex-parte on 27.7.2005 and ultimately, eviction order came to be passed treating him as an encroacher. The writ petitioner further submitted that his father preferred a revision petition in R.P.No.288 of 205 before the second respondent and pendency of the revision petition, his father died on 5.10.2005 and the revision petition came to be dismissed on 5.10.2010 and thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition on 2.7.2011 before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed on 28.2.2013 by the impugned G.O. Challenging the vires of the same, the appellant/petitioner has filed the writ petition. 4. 4. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the averments made in the affidavit and upon perusal of the impugned order and also hearing the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, found that neither the petitioner nor his father could produce any document in proof of the occupation of the said property, viz., the shop in question, while the petitioner’s father was alive. The learned single Judge also found that the authorities uniformly found that the father of the petitioner was an encroacher and since the said finding came to be rendered based on the materials placed on record, the said finding cannot be interfered with by the Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ultimately, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, by order dated 10.4.2013 and challenging the legality of the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner would vehemently contend that possession of other encroachers has been regularized by the Department and since the appellant/petitioner also stands on similar footing, his possession is also to be regularized and he is also prepared to deposit the entire arrears of rent to the Department. 6. This Court has perused the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and no such averment or ground has been raised in the writ petition stating that the possession of similarly placed persons, has been regularized. 7. All the authorities below uniformly found that the petitioner’s father was an encroacher and no tenable materials have been produced to show that the petitioner continue to be in possession after the demise of this father. 8. Since the findings came to be rendered on a proper appreciation and consideration of the entire materials placed before the authorities, the learned single Judge rightly found that the Court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the factual findings. This Court, on an independent application of mind and the materials placed, is of the considered opinion that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed, by dismissing the writ petition and this Court finds no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. This Court, on an independent application of mind and the materials placed, is of the considered opinion that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed, by dismissing the writ petition and this Court finds no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. After dismissal of the writ appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted even if the possession of the petitioner is termed as encroachment, he may require time to vacate from the premises. This Court heard the submissions of Mr. S. Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) with regard to the said plea. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also undertakes to file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner. In such a view of the matter, the appellant/writ petitioner is granted three months’ time to vacate and deliver the vacant peaceful possession of the shop premises in question subject to the condition that he shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., within a period of two weeks from today. On filing of such an affidavit of undertaking, the appellant is granted three months’ time from today to vacate and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question; otherwise, the respondents are at liberty to initiate further proceedings.