Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. Heard Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for tenant petitioner and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for landlords respondents No.3 & 4. 2. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No.38 of 1995, Ram Piyare Srivastava Vs. Mahendra Pratap Srivastava. Ram Piyare Srivastava is opposite party No.4 in the writ petition. Opposite party No.3 is son of Ram Piyare Srivastava. Plaintiff Ram Piyare Srivastava claimed that he had purchased the house in dispute from its previous owner Smt. Ishwardei in 1976. Petitioner was continuing as tenant since before its purchase by opposite party No.4. According to the petitioner his tenancy started w.e.f. 01.01.1976. In the plaint it was also alleged that defendant was defaulter in payment of rent sine January, 1990 and had also denied the title of the plaintiff. Relief of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against tenant petitioner was sought. 3. Previous owner Smt. Ishwardei died in 1978 leaving behind Ram Samoojh as his legal representative. 4. Petitioner contended that Ram Samoojh on 14.05.1985 executed an agreement for sale in his favour. However suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement for sale (Regular Suit No.366 of 1986) was dismissed on 13.09.1995. In the said suit, Ram Piyare, opposite party No.4 was also impleaded as one of the defendants. Against the said decree, petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.184 of 1995. The said appeal was dismissed on 31.05.1999 (during pendnecy of the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition). The suit giving rise to the instant writ petition was filed on 10.10.1995 (without one month from dismissal of specific performance suit). Prior to that, notice demanding rent and terminating the tenancy was given on 12.07.1995. 5. Tenant asserted that rate of rent was Rs.10/- per month however landlord asserted that it was Rs.50/- per month. 6. The suit was decreed by J.S.C.C., Faizabad on 12.04.2001. Against the said decree, petitioner filed Civil Revision No.95 of 2001 (ought to be S.C.C. Revision) IV A.D.J. Faizabad dismissed the revision on 08.03.2007, hence this writ petition. 8. The petitioner admitted that occasionally he gave rent to the plaintiff but he asserted that it was so done on the direction of Smt. Ishwardei or after her death on the direction of Ram Samoojh. 8. 8. The petitioner admitted that occasionally he gave rent to the plaintiff but he asserted that it was so done on the direction of Smt. Ishwardei or after her death on the direction of Ram Samoojh. 8. The plaintiff pleaded that he purchased part of the house through registered sale deed dated 10.08.1971 and rest part of the house through sale deed dated 09.07.1976 and the premises in dispute was that part of the house, which was purchased in 1976. It is not disputed that Smt. Ishwardei was the original owner of the property in dispute. As far as agreement for sale is concerned, firstly it does not confer any right or title. Secondly, suit for specific performance of agreement for sale has been dismissed and in the said suit in which plaintiff was also party, it has been held that the sale deed executed in his favour by Smt. Ishwardei was quite valid. 9. The finding that the rate of rent was not Rs.50/- per month is basically a finding of fact. It is also based on appraisal of the entire evidence including paper No.42-ga and 43-ga, letters written by the petitioner. In the letter 42-ga petitioner mentioned that he was sending Rs.150/- through Sri Ram Jeet Singh as rent from February, 1982 to April, 1982. 10. Regarding validity of notice, the courts below rightly placed reliance upon AIR 1974 All. 402 , Abdul Jalil Vs. Haji Abdul Jalil holding that use of present tense does not invalidate the notice. 11. The argument that house in dispute had been given on rent without allotment order, hence suit was not maintainable is also not tenable in law in view of Supreme Court authority reported in Nutan Kumar Vs. A.D.J., AIR 2002 SC 3456 . 12. Admittedly petitioner had not paid rent for the period, which was indicated in the notice. He also did not deposit the rent in the suit. Accordingly, he was liable to be evicted on the ground of default. The suit for eviction was also decreed on the ground of denial of title. However, as admittedly default was there, hence I need not examine the question of denial of title. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. 13. Tenant petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate on the following conditions. 1. The suit for eviction was also decreed on the ground of denial of title. However, as admittedly default was there, hence I need not examine the question of denial of title. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. 13. Tenant petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate on the following conditions. 1. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs.6000/- (at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall be deposited within one month before the J.S.C.C. Faizabad and shall immediately be paid to the landlords respondents. 2. Within one month from today tenant- petitioner shall file an undertaking before the J.S.C.C. Faizabad to the effect that within six months from the date of this judgment, he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlords respondents. 3. Within one month from today tenant shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date (after adjusting any amount already deposited) before the J.S.C.C., Faizabad for immediate payment to landlords respondents. 4. If within one month undertaking is not filed or the amount of Rs.6000/- and the decreetal amount are not deposited then from today till actual eviction tenant shall be liable to pay Rs.2000/- per month as rent/damages for use and occupation. 5. Similarly if after filing undertaking and depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.6000/- and decreetal amount property in dispute is not vacated within six months then since after six months till actual vacation tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay rent/damages @ Rs.2000/- per month. 14. It is needless to add that this direction of payment of Rs.2000/- per month is in addition to the right of the landlords respondents to file contempt petition and to get the accommodation in dispute vacated through execution. ______________