Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.:- This is a revision under section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The revision is filed against the order dated 5.2.2011 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of possession from the defendant has been decreed along with damages etc.. The SCC suit No.13 of 2010 was instituted by the plaintiff on the allegation that they are landlords of the property in dispute and the said property was let out to the defendant who is the applicant herein on a monthly rent of Rs.25,983/- for the period beginning from 16.6.2006 to 15.6.2009. The defendant after the expiry of the aforesaid period has failed to vacate the premises in question, hence the necessity to institute the suit arose. The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that in the registered rent agreement between the parties there was a renewal clause. The defendant tenant exercised the option of renewal of the lease and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Court thereafter decreed the suit. Sri Saral Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the revision submits only one point for consideration that the evidence was led to show that the defendant tenant exercised its option within the time prescribed in the rent agreement. After hearing the counsel for the parties at some length, it is difficult to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. The Court below has discussed the matter in detail in para 9 of its judgment. It has reached to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that the letters allegedly written by the defendant were served or received by the plaintiffs within the time stipulated. It has recorded a finding that the letter was never received by the plaintiff and it is not proved that the letter was ever sent to the plaintiffs. The said finding is essentially a finding of fact and is based on cogent and relevant material on record. Indisputably, the said letter was not sent by registered post nor there is any receipt. The case of the defendant tenant at the most is that the letter was sent through some private courier. No such presumption which is available to a registered letter in respect of a private courier service, is there. Indisputably, the said letter was not sent by registered post nor there is any receipt. The case of the defendant tenant at the most is that the letter was sent through some private courier. No such presumption which is available to a registered letter in respect of a private courier service, is there. In any view of the matter, the finding recorded by the trial Court is well considered finding and calls for no interference. No other point was pressed. I find no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed summarily. At the end, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for one year time to vacate the disputed premises. Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the caveator respondents though had some reservation but ultimately agreed the suggestion of the Court. Looking to the fact that the defendant tenant is an organisation, one year time is granted to vacate the disputed premises subject to the usual terms and conditions. In view of the joint agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, time to vacate the disputed premises is granted up to 31st of March, 2012 subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: The defendant applicant shall deposit the entire arrears of rent, if any, at the rate of Rs.25,983/- for the period up to March, 2011. For the subsequent months, the applicant tenant shall pay the damages at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. The applicant shall deposit the arrears of rent, if any and the future rent/damages at the rate stipulated above for the period up to March, 2012 within a period of one month before the trial Court by way of bank draft drawn in favour of the opposite party no.1. A responsible Officer of the applicant tenant shall give an undertaking on affidavit before the trial Court within the aforesaid period of one month clearly stating that the applicant defendant tenant shall vacate the disputed premises on or before 31st of March, 2012 and shall hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff landlords without creating any third party interest. In case of default in compliance of either of the conditions stipulated above, the time granted by this Court shall stand vacated. The revision is dismissed summarily.