Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 31st of October, 2007 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court in SCC Suit No.18 of 2007 whereby a decree for ejectment has been passed against the present applicant/tenant, the present revision has been filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The relevant facts are not much in dispute. The demised premises was let out to the defendant tenant under a lease agreement dated 11.6.2002 initially for a period of five years. The said agreement admittedly contains a renewal clause at the option of the lessee for further renewal of the lease for another five years on the payment of enhanced rent by 10 per cent. It appears that the property in question was sold by the original lessor to the present plaintiff on 9th of April, 2007. After expiry of the original lease period, the tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff by giving a notice. In reply, the tenant bank exercised option for renewal of the lease for a period of five years on enhanced rent by increase of 10 per cent of the current rent. The plaintiff landlord filed suit giving rise to the present revision which has been decreed by the judgment under revision. Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant bank, submits that there is a renewal clause admittedly between the parties and the bank exercised its option by sending notice within the prescribed period, therefore, the Court below was not justified in decreeing the suit for ejectment. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party supports the impugned judgement. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute between the parties that there is a renewal clause in the lease agreement giving option to the lessee bank for renewal for a period of five years at enhanced rent. The said right was exercised by the bank by giving notice to the plaintiff landlord. However, the Court below has held that the tenancy has come to an end after expiry of the original lease period. It proceeded on the footing that the tenant bank should have filed a suit for specific performance of the renewal clause. The view taken by the Court below is not at all justified. However, the Court below has held that the tenancy has come to an end after expiry of the original lease period. It proceeded on the footing that the tenant bank should have filed a suit for specific performance of the renewal clause. The view taken by the Court below is not at all justified. The option was exercised by the bank and as such the bank is entitled to remain in occupation of the demised premises for a further period of five years i.e. up to 14th of June, 2012. Having said so as above, I am not inclined to interfere in the present revision for a simple reason that the said period is going to expire shortly i.e. on 14th of June, 2012. But at the same time, it is provided that the decree for eviction shall not be executed up to 14th of June, 2012 provided the bank continues to pay the rent at the enhanced rate i.e. at the rate of Rs.4,400/- per month. The revision is disposed of accordingly. By way of clarification it is added that after expiry of the aforesaid period the decree for eviction shall be executed if the bank fails to vacate the disputed premises.