JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Madhusudan Dixit, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Prabha Kanta Mishra, Advocate for respondent-landlord and perused the record. 2. This is writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.01.2010 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad allowing respondent-landlord's application for release of premise in question and appellate order dated 04.04.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad dismissing petitioner's Rent Control Appeal No. 13 of 2010 confirming Trial Court's order. 3. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and learned counsel for the petitioner finding it difficult to assail the same, at the outset stated that petitioner may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premises in question. 4. Sri Prabha Kanta Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-landlord stated that landlord has also suffered sufficiently and though in principle did not object request of petitioner 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 respondent 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 petitioner may be allowed three months' time to vacate the premise in question. Sri Madhusudan Dixit, Advocate, appearing for petitioner also stated that petitioner undertakes to vacate premise within aforesaid period. 6. In view of the above, it is provided that petitioner, if files an affidavit within ten days from today before Trial Court containing an undertaking that he shall vacate 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 petitioner-tenant 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 made clear that petitioner-tenant 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 petitioner-tenant after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question fail 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 petitioner-tenant alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises. 7. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ petition is dismissed.