JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.: - Order dated 04.12.2013 passed on the order of the first writ petition is quoted below: "Heard Shri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mayankar Singh, learned counsel for landlord respondent in all the three writ petitions. Within a week written arguments may be filed. Shri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner shall also mention in the written arguments the latest position of payment of rent which is Rs.30/- per month. If the rent is being deposited then the photocopies of tender receipts should be filed. Judgment reserved. " 2. Pursuant to the above order written arguments were filed by Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for tenant petitioner on 10.12.2013, however it was not stated anywhere in the said written arguments that any rent had been paid. 3. Petitioner Vijay Kumar is tenant and Vincent Jyoti Primari School, opposite party No.1 in the second and third writ petition and opposite party No.3 in the first writ petition is the landlord (hereinafter referred to as the school). A big property containing eight kotharis and other constructions was purchased by the landlord school. The dispute in these writ petitions relates to two or three kotharis. According to the landlord, the petitioner was tenant of two kotharis at the rate of Rs.30/- per month per kothari. However, according to the tenant he was tenant of one more kothari and rate of rent of all the three khotaris was Rs.15/- per month per khotari total Rs.45/- per month. 4. As far as the third khotari is concerned according to landlord school it was in tenancy occupation of Smt. Samsa Devi. Against Smt. Samsa Devi, school filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No.7 of 1991. The said case was allowed on the basis of compromise by Prescribed Authority, Munsif Sadar, Faizabad on 26.02.1992. Thereafter, Smt. Samsa Devi was evicted through process of court. She did not file any appeal etc. Petitioner asserting that actually he was the tenant of the third kothari and not Smt. Samsa Devi, filed belated appeal against judgment of the Prescribed Authority. The appeal was belated by 280 days and accompanied by delay condonation application. The matter was registered as Misc. Case No.7 of 1993. Vijay Kumar Vs. Vicent Jyoti Primary School. District Judge, Faizabad dismissed the case on 25.11.1995. The appeal was belated by 280 days and accompanied by delay condonation application. The matter was registered as Misc. Case No.7 of 1993. Vijay Kumar Vs. Vicent Jyoti Primary School. District Judge, Faizabad dismissed the case on 25.11.1995. First writ petition is directed against order dated 25.11.1995. 5. The main ground taken by the petitioner was that he had filed a civil suit seeking to restrain the landlord school from evicting him from the three kotharis of which he was tenant and a temporary injunction had been granted to him in the civil suit (Regular Suit No.485 of 1991). 6. Petitioner also filed application for taking back the possession of third kothari before the Prescribed Authority, which had decided the case under Section 21 of the Act filed by the landlord school against Smt. Smita Devi. The application for restitution of possession was rejected on 20.07.1999 by Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar Faizabad. (The application had been registered as Case No.84 of 1992.) The said order has been challenged through the second writ petition. 7. As far as third writ petition is concerned, it arises out of S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 1992 instituted by the landlord school against tenant petitioner for his eviction from two khotaries on the ground of default after serving a notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent. The said suit was decreed on 15.09.2000 by J.S.C.C. Faizabad. Against the said decree tenant petitioner filed Revision No.219 of 2000, which was dismissed by A.D.J. Faizabad on 11.05.2001. The said judgments, decree and order have been challenged through the third writ petition. Third Writ Petition: - 8. The courts below recorded the finding that rate of rent was Rs.60/- per month (Rs.30/- per month for each kothari). Tenant asserted that rate of rent was Rs.15/- per month for each kothari and he was tenant of third kothari also, hence total rent was Rs.45 per month. Tenant also pleaded that he had paid Rs.1620/- as total payable rent on 31.07.1991 to the manager of the school, S.M. Prasad. Sri S.M. Prasad appeared as witness and denied having issued the alleged receipt of Rs.1620/- dated 31.07.1991. Handwriting experts were also examined by both the sides. Receipt showed payment of rent from 01.03.1988 to 31.07.1991. Tenant also pleaded that he had paid Rs.1620/- as total payable rent on 31.07.1991 to the manager of the school, S.M. Prasad. Sri S.M. Prasad appeared as witness and denied having issued the alleged receipt of Rs.1620/- dated 31.07.1991. Handwriting experts were also examined by both the sides. Receipt showed payment of rent from 01.03.1988 to 31.07.1991. The courts below held that payment was not proved and it could not be the rent for the alleged period at the rate of Rs.45 per month as at the rate of Rs.45/- per month rent of 41 months (March, 1988 to July, 1991) comes to Rs.1185 only. The tenant had further pleaded that he had spent Rs.250-300/- in repairs, which was adjusted in the rent. If this statement was correct then tenant should have paid only about Rs.900/-. 9. Regarding rate of rent reliance was placed upon the sale deed dated 01.03.1988 through which landlord, the school purchased the property. In the sale deed, it was mentioned that the sold property had 8 kotharis and 5 kotharis were let out for Rs.30/- per month and total rent of eight kotharis would be about Rs.250/- per month. Notice was also found served upon the tenant. Tenant asserted that rent of August and September, 1991 was sent through money order which was refused, hence he deposited the rent thereafter under Section 30 of the Act. The findings recorded by the courts below are basically findings of fact and have been arrived at after taking into consideration the entire material on record. 10. Moreover as held by the Supreme Court in the following authority non-payment of rent after getting the stay order from the High Court during pendency of the writ petition dis-entitles the tenant from invoking the discretionary remedy of writ jurisdiction. Carona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan and Sons, AIR 2008 SC 187 11. Accordingly, third writ petition is dismissed. 12. 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 landlord respondent. 2. 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 landlord respondent. 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 landlord respondent. 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 landlord-respondent. 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.1500/- 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.1500/- per month. It is needless to add that this direction of payment of Rs.1500/- per month is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition and to get the accommodation in dispute vacated through execution. First and Second Writ Petition: - 13. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the applications on the ground that petitioner's regular suit was pending. 14. third writ petition has been dismissed and petitioner has been held liable to eviction on the ground of default and also on the ground that due to non payment of rent, which is already extremely negligible, discretionary relief of exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot be granted hence first and second writ petitions also deserve to be dismissed. 15. Moreover, if there was any collusion between the landlord, School and Smt. Samsa Devi and the landlord had intended to evict the petitioner surreptitiously by filing release application against an un-concerned person, Smt. Samsa Devi, and getting the same allowed on compromise then it should have been done for all the three petitioners. 15. Moreover, if there was any collusion between the landlord, School and Smt. Samsa Devi and the landlord had intended to evict the petitioner surreptitiously by filing release application against an un-concerned person, Smt. Samsa Devi, and getting the same allowed on compromise then it should have been done for all the three petitioners. Accordingly, second and third writ petitions are also dismissed.