(1) WE find that leave to appeal was granted in this matter from the order of the High court. Counsel for the appellant sought for time to vacate the shop in question and time was allowed to the appellant on the ground that he would hand ovei vacant possession of the shop either to the plaintiff-respondent or to the trial court and would also pay all the arrears of the rent, if any, due against him. Upon this undertaking, the High court records, time was given to the appellant for delivering vacant peaceful possession. Taking advantage of this the appellant has obtained special leave. We are of the opinion that whatever be the merits of the case upon which we do not propose to enter, in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, it would not be proper, after such an undertaking was given in the High court and time obtained on the basis of such undertaking, to interfere with the findings made by the High court. In that view of the matter this appeal must be dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the appellant is carrying on business in the premises in question the respondent has no objection if the appellant is allowed time up to 31/05/1987 to va