JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The tenant-applicant has approached this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated 3 October 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur in SCC Revision No. 13/2014 arising from the judgment and order dated 14 May 2014 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Saharanpur in SCC No. 124 of 1997. 3. The respondent-landlord preferred a suit before the small causes court for arrears of rent, ejectment and for making material alterations in the suit property which is a residential house. The original-tenant appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. It was admitted in the written statement that the respondent is landlord but it was averred that the defendant had no knowledge of hibba (oral gift). The applicants who are legal heirs of erstwhile tenant filed an additional written statement adopting the written statement filed by their father. In the additional written statement, plea of validity of notice or derivative title of the respondent-landlord was not assailed. The courts below upon considering the evidence and material available on record, noted that the applicants had already purchased a residential premises in the same locality, therefore, were not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4). Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the courts below have not considered that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was bad and not legal, hence, the applicant could not have been evicted on that basis. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the point was raised before the courts below but was not considered. However, in the pleadings before this Court, no ground or assertion has been made that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is bad, as such, the applicant could not have been evicted. Even otherwise, a ground though raised but not pressed before the courts below cannot be gone into in the first instance by this Court. 4. It is made clear that no other point was pressed. 5. In absence of pleadings before this Court that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is bad, it is not open for this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to go into the question. 6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. 5. In absence of pleadings before this Court that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is bad, it is not open for this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to go into the question. 6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. On dismissal of the petition, the learned counsel for the applicant made a request that some reasonable time may be given to the applicants to vacate the premises. 8. On the request being made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that in case the applicants give an undertaking on oath before the court below that they shall vacate the premises in question and hand over the possession of the same peacefully to the respondent-landlord on or before 30 May 2016. The aforesaid undertaking on oath shall be given by the applicant before the Court below within three weeks from today and the applicants shall deposit the monthly rent/damages which has been enhanced at L 1000/- from L 50/- of the premises in question before the Court below, and shall continue to deposit the same by 07th of the each calendar month till the vacation of the premises in question, which amount may be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-landlord after due verification by the Court concerned. 9. It is made clear that in the event of default committed by the applicant-tenant in any of the conditions, the order shall stand automatically vacated without reference to the Court. Petition dismissed.