JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. Landlord's petition for eviction has been decreed by both the courts below, which is under challenge in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Proceedings for eviction of the petitioner were initiated by the respondent no.1 with the allegation that the defendant no.1 was tenant of the premises and defendant no.2, who is the petitioner herein, was also arrayed as defendant. It was pleaded that tenant has defaulted in payment of rent, and consequently, proceedings for eviction were initiated. Both the courts below have found that defendant no.1 was the tenant and a finding has been returned that there was a default in payment of rent, and as such, decree for eviction of the petitioner has been granted.? 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the property belonged to Deepak Tiwari, who happens to be nephew of respondent no.1. Submission is that proceedings at the instance of respondent no.1 was not maintainable. It is also stated that defendant no.1, who is son of petitioner herein, was not the tenant and it was claimed that petitioner in fact was tenant of the premises in question, and therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, submits that both the orders are based upon consideration of materials brought on record, and same required no interference. 5. Having considered the submissions, this court finds that defendant no.1 was claimed to be the tenant of the premises, who admittedly is the son of petitioner herein. It is not in dispute that defendant no.1 although was served in proceedings before the trial court, but he has neither appeared nor has filed any reply. Defendant no.1, however, has joined defendant no.2/petitioner in filing revision, but no satisfactory explanation was brought on record as to why defendant no.1 has chosen not to contest the proceedings. The finding returned by both the courts below, upon consideration of aforesaid aspect, that defendant no.1 was in fact the tenant, is a finding based upon consideration of fact, which is not shown to be perverse, and as such, requires no interference in the present petition. The finding returned by both the courts below, upon consideration of aforesaid aspect, that defendant no.1 was in fact the tenant, is a finding based upon consideration of fact, which is not shown to be perverse, and as such, requires no interference in the present petition. So far as the contention with regard to respondent no.1 not being the owner of the premises is concerned, it is apparent that no other claim of landlord/ownership by any other person was brought on record. An affidavit of alleged Deepak Tiwari was brought on record, admitting the ownership of respondent no.1 over the property in question. In such circumstances, the finding returned by both the courts below that Shyam Sunder Tiwari was landlord of the premises also cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous and requires no interference. 6. However, as petitioner has continued to remain in possession of the premises for quite sometime, a reasonable time is liable to be allowed to him to vacate the premises in question. Such prayer is not opposed by other side. Considering the above, it is provided that in case petitioner files an undertaking before the court below, within a period of one month, along with advance rent for a period of nine months, stating that he shall vacate the premises upon expiry of nine months, he shall be allowed to continue in possession for such time, whereafter he shall handover peaceful vacant possession of property in question to the plaintiff-respondent. Petitioner shall also deposit the entire decretal amount within the period of one month. 7. Subject to the above observations/directions, this petition fails and is consigned to records.