JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - By way of instant petition filed under Section 24(5) of the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 28.10.2017, passed by the learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge) Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2017, affirming the judgment dated 22.4.2017, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., in Rent Petition No. 1-11/2013, whereby learned Rent Controller while allowing the rent petition having been filed on behalf of the respondent herein directed the present petitioner to vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner within three months from the date of passing of judgment dated 22.4.2017. 2. On 30.7.2018, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, informed this Court that the petitioner would be satisfied in case some reasonable time is granted to vacate the demised premises in terms of judgment passed by the courts below. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent also stated that respondent is not averse to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, subject to the condition that some reasonable time is granted by this Court to vacate the premises. 3. In view of the aforesaid statements having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties, this Court vide order dated 30.7.2018, directed some responsible officer of petitioner-society to remain present in Court so that his/her statement is recorded to the effect that demised premises shall be vacated and handed over to the respondent within a time agreed before this Court. 4. Ms. Chetan Devi, who is Managing Director of the Petitioner Society, who has come present in Court stated on oath before this Court that demised premises i.e. No. 6/19, area measuring 18x10 feet, Model Town Manali, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P., shall be vacated and handed over to the respondent on or before 31.1.2019. Above named officer stated before this Court that she is making this statement with her own volition and without there being any external pressure. She further stated that she fully understands the consequences of statement being made by me before the Court and in case, commitment given to this Court is not honoured, she shall be liable for penal consequence as well as proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act. Her statement is taken on record. 5. She further stated that she fully understands the consequences of statement being made by me before the Court and in case, commitment given to this Court is not honoured, she shall be liable for penal consequence as well as proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act. Her statement is taken on record. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is dismissed and impugned judgments passed by the courts below are upheld. However, it is ordered that possession of the demised premises in terms of the judgment passed by the Rent Controller shall be handed over by the petitioner to the respondent on or before 31st January, 2019. Needless to say, in case, petitioner fails to hand over the possession within the stipulated period, as agreed , Managing Director of the petitioner-Society shall be liable for the penal action as well as proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act.