JUDGMENT : S. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 issued a notice at Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition dated 13th May, 2015, calling upon the appellant-writ petitioner to vacate the premises in question on the ground that the building is very old and is in a dilapidated condition and that in order to avoid any tragic incidents, it requires necessary repairs. 2. The petitioner sent a reply to the notice at Annexure 'B' dated 18th May, 2015 stating that he requires reasonable time of around six months to look for similar suitable place to vacate the premises in question. The relevant portion of the reply is as under:- "Under the circumstances, it is practically not possible to immediately close the business and vacate the premises as demanded under your notice. The premises under our possession is still in good condition. We require some reasonable period of around six months for a similar suitable premises and shift our business therein. Hence, We sincerely request you to allow us to continue our business in the said premises till such period and do the needful." 3. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 21777 of 2015 [LB-RES] challenging the validity of the said notice. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing as under:- "4. There is no dispute that the petitioner is carrying on business in the shop premises in question. Three days' time granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop, to take up the repair work etc., of the building is too inadequate The petitioner by submitting representation vide Annexure-B, on 18.05.2015, has rightly state; that he requires reasonable period to look far suitable premises and shift his business concern. The petitioner cannot be uprooted, with out giving reasonable period. In the circumstances, the period as sought by the petitioner in his said representation i.e., of around about six months to look for similar suitable premises and shift his business concern being justified, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to hand-over possession of the shot premises to the respondents for carrying out the repairs/renovation, as the case may be. The respondents are hereby directed non give effect to the impugned notice till 30.11.2015. The respondents are hereby directed non give effect to the impugned notice till 30.11.2015. Petition is disposed of accordingly." The appellant has challenged the said order of the learned single Judge in this writ appeal. 4. Sri. P.V. Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the notice at Annexure 'A' does not contain any statutory provision under which the appellant was sought to be evicted. It is submitted that the appellant is a tenant in respect of the property in question. Without following the due procedure of law, respondent No. 1 has asked the appellant to vacate premises in question. 5. On the other hand, learned advocates appearing for the respondents submits than building is in a dilapidated condition. It is dangerous to the inmates thereof as also to neighbours and passers-by. The building is situated in a busy market place and that in case the building collapses, it will not only endanger the life and properties of the inmates but also the surrounding persons. He submits that the notices are referable to Section 322(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant has undertaken to vacate the premises within a period of six months. The learned single Judge has granted six months' time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced photographs of the building for perusal of the Court. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the tenant of the premises in question. A perusal of the photographs produced by the learned counsel for the respondents would indicate that the building is in a dilapidated condition. Be that as it may. 7. Section 322 (3) of the Act states that if the Commissioner opines that the structure in question is imminently dangerous to the inmates thereof, the Commissioner shall order the immediate evacuation thereof and any persons disobeying, may be removed by any Police Officer. 8. According to the respondents, the building is imminently dangerous not only to the inmates thereof, but also to the neighbours and passers-by, as it is situated in the crowded market place. The notice at Annexure 'A' is referable to sub-section (3) of Section 322 of the Act. 9. 8. According to the respondents, the building is imminently dangerous not only to the inmates thereof, but also to the neighbours and passers-by, as it is situated in the crowded market place. The notice at Annexure 'A' is referable to sub-section (3) of Section 322 of the Act. 9. It is also clear from the reply at Annexure 'B' that the appellant has realised the condition of the building and has undertaken to vacate the building within a period of six months. Therefore, the learned single Judge, in his discretion, has granted six months' time for vacating the premises. We do not find any error in the said order. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks reasonable time to vacate the building in question. Accepting the request, three months' time from today is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises in question, at his risk. No costs. Appeal dismissed.