JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioners, in both the petitions are tenant of different premises belonging to the respondent. The respondent is a recognised educational institution as defined under section 3(q) of the U.P Act no.13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act'). The respondent initiated the proceeding for eviction of the petitioners by filing two separate suits before the Judge Small Causes Court being SCC suit nos. 25 and 26 of the year 2005. In both the suits, the arrears of rent was claimed and ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenancy of the petitioners had been determined by means of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but the petitioners failed to vacate. It was pleaded by the respondent-landlord that since the demised premises belong to a recognised educational institution and therefore, the provisions of the Act would not apply in view of section 2(1)(b). The suits were contested by the petitioners by filing written statement and ultimately, by separate judgement dated 5.5.2012 in the above referred suits, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted and the suits were decreed for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court, the petitioners preferred two separate revisions under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present petitions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, initially tried to assail the findings recorded by the courts below in relation to exemption of the demised premises from the provisions of the Act, but thereafter very fairly conceded that the findings recorded in that regard are findings of fact and he is unable to show any illegality or perversity therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not assailed any other finding recorded by the courts below but the only prayer made is for grant of reasonable time to the petitioners to vacate the demised premises. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has no objection to reasonable time being granted to the petitioners, provided they furnish an undertaking in that regard before the trial court and pay the entire arrears of rent as well as future rents and damages within the time as may be directed by this Court. 4. In view of the above, both the petitions are dismissed. 4. In view of the above, both the petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted time upto 31st March, 2016 to vacate the demised premises subject to the following conditions : - (a) The petitioners shall file separate undertaking in the form of affidavit before the trial court that they will handover vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord on or before 31st March, 2016. (b) The petitioners shall within three weeks from today, apart from furnishing undertaking to the said effect, will also deposit the entire arrears of rent and future rent/damages until 31st March, 2016, before the trial court alongwith the undertaking. (c) The amount which may be deposited by the petitioners, in compliance of the conditions imposed by this order, shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-landlord. 5. In case of default of any of these conditions, the protection granted by this order, shall stand vacated automatically and it shall be open to the respondent-landlord to execute the decree passed by the courts below, in accordance with law. 6. A copy of this order shall be kept in both the files.