JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. -- The applicant/tenant has approached this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated 26 October 2015 passed by the revisional Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Revision No. 8 of 2012 arising from an order passed by the Small Causes Court at Kanpur Nagar decreeing the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages. 2. The respondent/landlord, a Trust, instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent and damages. The applicant appeared and contested the suit. The Trial Court framed four issues; first issue pertains as to whether, there is a relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties and the second issue pertains, as to whether, there is arrears of rent. 3. The Courts below returned a concurrent finding holding that it was admitted by the applicant that the premises was taken on rent from the Sarvarakar/Manager of the Trust, the plea of the applicant that he was depositing the rent to one Krishna Kumar, therefore, Leelawati is not the Sarvarakar, was not accepted by the Courts below for the reason that the P.W.-1 categorically stated that Krishna Kumar was accepting the rent as an agent of the Manager. Further, it was established by the material and evidence on record that Krishna Kumar had accepted his mother Leelawati as Sarvarakar upon the death of his father. 4. It is sought to be urged before this Court that the name of Leelawati which was mutated by the authorities in the Municipal records was subsequently deleted in appeal as there being some dispute between her and the daughter-in-law, Reena Jaiswal. The applicant upon the death of Krishna Kumar claims to have been paying the rent to Reena Jaiswal. In support of his submission, the applicant filed xerox-copy of the order passed by the appellate authority. The trial Court refused to take in evidence the xerox-copy of the document, but also noted, that the order is of no relevance and help to the applicant as it pertains to house no. 68/128, whereas, the disputed property is house no. 71/102 belonging to the trust, therefore, the Courts recorded a finding that the suit at the behest of Leelawati is maintainable and she being the Sarvarakar of the trust is the landlord. 5. 68/128, whereas, the disputed property is house no. 71/102 belonging to the trust, therefore, the Courts recorded a finding that the suit at the behest of Leelawati is maintainable and she being the Sarvarakar of the trust is the landlord. 5. The second point being raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no arrears of rent, the amount along with interest was deposited, therefore, is entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of Act 13 of 1972. The Court of first instance and the Revisional Court noted in the impugned order that upon the death of Krishna Kumar on 1 December 2001, the applicant admitted in his statement that due to the ensuing dispute between Krishna Kumar, his mother and her daughter-in-law, the applicant was not depositing the rent before the Court under Section 30(2) of Act 13 of 1972. This fact is undisputed that the applicant had not paid the rent after 1 December 2001 either to the landlord or before the Court, the receipts that were sought to be produced regarding payment of rent being xerox-copy could not have been read in evidence. 6. The submission that is being sought to be urged before this court being purely factual which has been adjudicated upon by the courts below thereby returning a concurrent finding of fact upon appreciation of material and evidence available on record. 7. This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in view of the Constitution Bench decision rendered in Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others (Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009) decided on 26th February, 2015. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 9. It is made clear that no other point was pressed. 10. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Upon dismissal of the petition, learned counsel for the applicant/tenant prays that some reasonable time may be given to the applicant to vacate the premises. 12. In such circumstances, it is provided that in case the applicant gives an undertaking on oath before the court concerned that he shall vacate the premises in question and hand over the possession of the same peacefully to the respondent-landlord on or before 5 August 2016. 12. In such circumstances, it is provided that in case the applicant gives an undertaking on oath before the court concerned that he shall vacate the premises in question and hand over the possession of the same peacefully to the respondent-landlord on or before 5 August 2016. The aforesaid undertaking on oath shall be given by the applicant before the Court below within 10 days from today and the applicant shall deposit the monthly rent @ Rs.500/- per month of the premises in question before the Court below and shall continue to deposit the same by 7th 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. 13. 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.