S. U. KHAN, J. Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned Counsel for the peti tioners-tenants and Sri Rajeev Joshi, learned Counsel, who appeared on behalf of landlord-respondent No. 1 through caveat. 2. This is tenant writ petition. Smt. Surajmukhi, mother of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed suit for eviction against grandfather of tenants-petitioners and proforma respondents, Moti Ram the original tenant in the form of S. C. C. Suit No. 4 of 1983. Both, original plaintiff and original defendant died during pendency of suit. Plaintiff was survived and substituted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant was survived and substituted by Devi Das Jain father of both the petitioners, and proforma respondent Nos. 3 to 11. Thereafter, Devi Das also died and was substituted by the petitioners. 3. In the plaint, it was alleged that original plaintiff had executed a general power of attorney in favour of Sumer Chand on 5. 1. 1956. Suit was filed by Smt. Surajmukhi through Sri Sumer Chand. Property in dispute is premises bearing No. 112 situate in Mohalla Kayastha Bara, Muzzafarnagar. Rent is Rs. 250/- per month. It was alleged in the plaint that a shop (No. 13) being part of the tenanted premises was partitioned and sub-let by the tenants to Subhash Kerana Store and Modern General Store. 4. It was further alleged that another shop bearing No. 12, which was part of the tenanted accommodation was also sub-let by the tenants to Om Prakash Kishan Lal and another portion of the said shop was sub-let to Navneet Traders. It was also alleged that some other portions of accommoda tion in dispute were sub-let to Moti Ram, Devi Das and Shikhar Chand (however, Moti Ram, Devi Das and Shekhar Chand were sons and grand-sons of original tenants ). It was further alleged that the accommodation on the first floor of shop No. 12 had been sub-let to Rameshwar Das for residential pur pose. 5. Suit was filed under section 20 (2) (b), (c) and (e) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and it was also alleged that since August, 1980, rent had not been paid. J. S. C. C. /iind A. C. J. , Senior Division, Muzzaffarnagar decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 24. 10. 1997. J. S. C. C. /iind A. C. J. , Senior Division, Muzzaffarnagar decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 24. 10. 1997. Against the said judgment and decree, S. C. C. Revision No. 511 of 1997 was filed. In the revision, which was filed by Devi Das, an application was moved by Devi Das on 31. 1. 1998 for getting the revision dismissed as not pressed. Revision was accord ingly dismissed as not pressed by District Judge, Muzzafarnagar on 18. 4. 1998. It is alleged in Para-9 of the writ petition that the said application was moved by the father of the petitioners under the influence and assurance given by respondent No. 1 that in case revision was withdrawn, tenancy would be regular ized. 6. Thereafter, execution application was filed by the respondent No. 1 on 7. 1. 2004 which was numbered as S. C. C. Execution No. 1 of 2004. In the said exe cution, petitioners filed Misc. Case No. 2 of 2004 under section 47, C. P. C. In Para-17 of the said objections (copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ peti tion), same thing was stated, which has been stated in Para-9 of the writ peti tion, i. e. , that Devi Das father of the petitioners was assured that his tenancy would be regularized, hence revision was got dismissed by him as not pressed. J. S. C. C. /a. C. J. , Senior Division, Muzzafarnagar dismissed the objections through order dated 14. 5. 2008. Against the said order S. C. C. Revision No. 28 of 2008 was filed. District Judge, Muzzafarnagar, through judgment and order dated 31. 1. 2008, dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition. 7. It had specifically been argued by the petitioners before the Courts be low that decree passed in the suit was bad as the only evidence in the suit was oral evidence of Sumer Chand the attorney, however, when Sumer Chand gave evidence, Surajmukhi had died. Sumer Chand appeared as witness. Facts may be proved by any witness, who has got personal knowledge of the said facts. Exactly this very thing was done by Sumer Chand. Moreover, this very ground was taken in revision, which was got dismissed as not pressed. 8. I do not find least error in the view taken by both the Courts below. Facts may be proved by any witness, who has got personal knowledge of the said facts. Exactly this very thing was done by Sumer Chand. Moreover, this very ground was taken in revision, which was got dismissed as not pressed. 8. I do not find least error in the view taken by both the Courts below. The fact that revision was got dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn was not denied by the petitioners. Merely because a previous attorney appeared as witness, de cree passed upon his statement does not become a nullity. The assertion that there was some oral agreement in between Devi Das and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was not proved. Moreover, if any agreement takes place during pendency of suit or revision or appeal, it is required to be recorded in writing and filed in Court. In the application filed for getting the revision dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed, no written agreement was pleaded. 9. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the impugned orders. Writ peti tion is therefore dismissed. Tenants-petitioners are granted six months time to vacate provided that : 1. Within one month from today tenants file an undertaking before the J. S. C. C. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the prop erty in dispute to the landlords-respondents. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenants-petitioners to vacate, they are required to pay Rs. 12,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the J. S. C. C. and shall im mediately be paid to the landlords-respondents. The direction is issued in view of the fact that in the impugned prop erty at least four businesses are being run and a part of it is being used for residential purposes and it is situate in Muzzafarnagar which is very near to Delhi. 3. Within one month from today tenants shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date before J. S. C. C. for immediate payment to landlords-respondents. 10. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenants-peti tioners shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. 3. Within one month from today tenants shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date before J. S. C. C. for immediate payment to landlords-respondents. 10. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenants-peti tioners shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or decreetal amount and Rs. 12,000/- are not deposited within one month then tenants-petitioners shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 3. 000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 11. Similarly, if after complying with the above conditions shop in dis pute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then since after six months till actual vacation tenants-petitioners shall be liable to pay rent/damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application. Writ Petition Dismissed. .