JUDGMENT Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. In paragraph 10 of the supplementary affidavit, it is alleged that the notice dated 27.07.1999, which is the basis of the suit, was not proved in accordance with law as it was not even opened. It is pointed out that the courts below have only recorded findings to the effect that the notice was served by refusal and have concluded that the notice duly terminates the tenancy of the petitioner, but without referring to the contents thereof. 3. The submission appears to have force. 4. Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by Sri Rajesh Gupta. He prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit. 5. List in the week commencing 5.10.2015. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement before this Court that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay Rs.1500/- per month as rent/damages during the pendency of the petition. 7. Considering the submissions made and the facts of the case, dispossession of the petitioners from the accommodation in dispute, shall remain stayed, provided the petitioners deposits the entire decreetal amount before the trial court, within a period of three weeks from today and continues to deposit future rents and damages on 7th of each succeeding month at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. In case of default of any of the conditions, the interim order shall stand vacated automatically. 8. Any amount, if deposited by the petitioners, in the courts below, shall be duly taken into consideration for the purposes of ensuring compliance of this order. 9. It shall be open to the respondent-landlord to withdraw the amout, without furnishing any security.