JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. By means of this revision the revisionists have challenged the order of the executing court dated 30.1.2015 by which the objection filed under Section 47 of the C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Initially a suit was filed being S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 2013 for eviction and arrears of rent. The grounds taken for eviction was that there was an agreement arrived at between the parties on 21st of September, 2010 to enter into lease for 36 months at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per month as rent. One of the conditions of the agreement was that even prior to the expiry of 36 months the lease can be terminated on account of default in payment of rent. It has been alleged that on number of occasions cheques were dishonoured and, therefore, according to agreement even prior to the expiry of 36 months period by a notice dated 13.2.2013 the tenancy of the revisionists was determined. The court while decreeing the suit in favour of the landlord proceeded to decide the same under order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. and upon the admission of the defendants with regard to dishonour of the cheques it further held that the agreement is not disputed that the same is for a period of 36 months and 36 months are over according to the terms and conditions of the lease, the defendants are in unauthorized occupation and directed to vacate the premises and pay the defaulted rent along with interest and damages. The said decree dated 28.5.2014 was challenged by way of revision before this Court being S.C.C. Revision No. 341 of 2014, but the same was dismissed as not pressed by order dated 21.8.2014. 3. When the decree was put to execution by means of Misc. Case No. 37 of 2014 the revisionists filed an objection under Section 47 of the C.P.C. raising various objection including that the court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree as even prior to the expiry of 36 months, i.e. the period of lease, the suit was instituted and further that the court has held the revisionists to be in unauthorized occupation and, therefore, the proper remedy for removal or eviction is to file a regular suit and not S.C.C. Suit. The said objection filed under Section 47 C.P.C. was rejected by the court below holding that at the time of institution of suit, according to the terms of the lease, upon dishonour of cheques the landlord or the lesser had the right to determine the lease. That apart the revisionists did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant between them as per the lease agreement. It was also not disputed that the lease period was 36 months and, therefore, on these grounds the executing court rejected the objection of the revisionists which is subject matter of challenge in this revision. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists. 5. So far as jurisdiction of the court is concerned, for which it has been submitted that the decree is a nullity and it has been passed without any jurisdiction, cannot be executed. It is not disputed that a lease deed was executed for a period of 36 months at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per month rent. There was conditions in the lease that in case of default of payment of rent the lesser had the right to terminate the tenancy. It is also not disputed that certain cheques were dishonoured and, therefore, the lesser had a right to terminate the tenancy. On this ground it cannot be said that the Judge Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That apart it is also to be noted that the decree was challenged by way of revision before this Court, but the said revision was not pressed. Now same objection is being taken under Section 47 of C.P.C. which the revisionists are debarred on the principle of estoppel. 6. Under the given circumstances, there is no merit in the revision and it is, accordingly, dismissed.