JUDGMENT Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. - Heard Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Yashovardhan Swaroop, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, of the present case? as stated by the learned counsel for the revisionist are to the effect that? Landlord / Sanjeev Kumar Khandelwal had given the premises in question situated at building no. 72/6, Khandelwal Builing, Munna Lal Dharamshala Road, Charbagh, Lucknow., details of which is given herein below under the tenancy of Punjab National Bank:- North: passage and open land thereafter Munna Lal Dharamshala Road South: Property of plaintiff and Late Sri R.P. Khandelwal & thereafter Transport Market road. East: Krishna Building West: Portion of R.P. Khandelwal in possession of defendant. Thereafter the landlord/ Sanjeev Kumar Khandelwal filed a suit for arrears of rent, damages? and ejectment Sanjeev Kumar Khandelwal Vs. Punjab National Bank), allowed vide judgment and? decree dated 31.1.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Lucknow. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act 1884. 4. Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that possession of the premises in question? has already been handed over? to the landlord to Sri Sanjeev Kumar Khandelwal. 5. The said position has not been disputed by both the learned counsel for the? opposite party. 6. Sri Chandra learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the the amount?? as awarded by order dated 31.1.2008? i.e. Rs. 9736/- per month towards arrears of rent? for the period from 24.11.2001 to 31.5.2004 and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as damages? for illegal possession of the premises in question for the period from 1.6.2004 to 30.7.2006 excluding the amount which has already? been deposited by the bank in the matter in question before the court below , the bank is ready to to make payment of the same and requested that the present revision may be disposed of in view of the above said fact. 7. Sri Yashovardhan Swaroop, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the above said request made on behalf of the revisionist/tenant. 8. In view of the above said fact without adjudicating the controversy? which? involved in the present revision? and after taking into consideration? that the possession of the premises? in question? 7. Sri Yashovardhan Swaroop, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the above said request made on behalf of the revisionist/tenant. 8. In view of the above said fact without adjudicating the controversy? which? involved in the present revision? and after taking into consideration? that the possession of the premises? in question? has already been handed over to the landlord and the petitioner is ready to pay the amount as stated above I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will sub serve? if the present revision may be disposed of accordingly. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the present revision is disposed of with the direction? to the revisionist / Punjab National Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 9736.00 per month? for the period? 24.11.2001 to 31.5.2004? and a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 per month for the period 1.6.2004 to 31.7.2006? after adjusting the amount already paid/ deposited by the revisionist? in the matter in question? in the court below to the landlord/ respondent ( Sanjeev Kumar Khandelwal) within a period of ten weeks from today as agreed between the parties? failing which the landlord/ respondent shall be entitled? to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the tenant till the date of actual payment. 10. With the above observations and directions , the? present revision is disposed of finally.