JUDGMENT : Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the judgments and orders dated 06.05.2017 and 23.05.2017 passed in Case No. 42/16 (Smt. Manju Jain and another v. Babu Lal) by Court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under section 16(1)B of U.P. Act No. 13, 1972 and judgment and order dated 16.08.2017 passed in Rent Revision No. 16/2017 (Babu Lal v. Smt. Manju Jain and another) by the Court of District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Vide order dated 06.05.2017, the property in dispute, i.e., House No. 35/183 Bengali Mohal, P.S. Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar consisting of two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom was declared vacant. Thereafter, release application filed by landlord was allowed in respect of property in dispute vide impugned order dated 23.05.2017. Hence, both these orders are under challenge. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that notice was never served upon the petitioner and he has disputed the service of notice, therefore, there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice and provision of Rule 8(2) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") has not been complied with. 5. It was next submitted that there was a notarized agreement with earlier owner of property in dispute dated 13.09.2010 which has not been considered by the court below. Therefore, orders under challenge are liable to be quashed. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. Perusal of record reflects that it has been clearly observed in both the judgments, a notice was issued to tenant-petitioner by registered post as well as personal service upon petitioner was also affected by Process Server. A notice was accepted by the petitioner but he did not file any objection and also did not appear before authority concerned, as such, the matter was directed to proceed ex-parte against him after recording of sufficiency of service vide order dated 02.05.2017. 8. A notice was accepted by the petitioner but he did not file any objection and also did not appear before authority concerned, as such, the matter was directed to proceed ex-parte against him after recording of sufficiency of service vide order dated 02.05.2017. 8. After declaration of vacancy, the same was published in Hindi and English Newspaper and also put on the notice board as well as on the landlord and the need of landlord was found to be bona fide and pressing and, therefore, property in question was released in favour of the landlord. The order of vacancy as well as the release was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Rent Revision which too was dismissed. 9. In the revisional order, it has been noticed that notice sent to the revisionist was received by revisionist himself and he has put his signature on the first page but he did not appear in the lower Court. Notice sent by Rent Control Inspector was received by the petitioner herein on 05.05.2014 but no reply was given since the petitioner had not filed any objection and had not adduced any evidence to controvert the facts and evidence regarding contesting the vacancy as well as challenging the bona fide need of the landlord. The Revisional Court did not interfere in the impugned orders of the court below. 10. On perusal of record, I find that signatures, on the notice so received by the petitioner on 05.05.2014, have not been disputed and, therefore, although a false assertion was made that notice was never served but it has not been asserted that his signature on the receiving of the notice are forged. 11. In such view of the matter, Court below has not committed any mistake in recording sufficiency of notice upon the petitioner. The bona fide and pressing need was proved by landlord who had in fact purchased the property for their own need. 12. All these finding of facts, which are based on evidence available on record, it cannot be re-appreciated by this Court. 13. In view of above facts and circumstances, this petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute. 15. 13. In view of above facts and circumstances, this petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute. 15. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an undertaking by the petitioner-tenant before the Court below, it is provided that: (1) The tenant-petitioner shall handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 30.4.2018. (2) The tenant-petitioner shall file the undertaking before the Court below to the said effect within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; (3) The tenant-petitioner shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; (4) The tenant-petitioner shall pay damages @ Rs. 2,000/- per month by 07th day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below till 30.4.2018 or till the date he vacates the premises, whichever is earlier and the landlord is at liberty to withdraw the said amount; (5) In the undertaking the tenant-petitioner shall also state that he will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute; (6) Subject to filing of the said undertaking, the tenant-petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till the aforesaid period; (7) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. (8) In case the shop is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner, he shall also be liable for contempt. 16. No order as to costs.