JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. – Heard Sri R.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-landlord. 2. The submission is that the order of the court below is wholly illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. In essence, learned counsel for the revisionists challenging the finding of the fact recorded by the court below. 3. I am not inclined to interfere in the aforesaid finding of facts in the present revision. 4. The revision has been filed against the judgment and order of the court below dated 15.10.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge Court no. 24 District Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Case No. 261 of 2014. 5. Five issues were framed by the court below. Apart from other issues, issue no. 2 was regarding default in payment of rent has been decided against the revisionist-tenant. A perusal of witnesses indicates that admittedly there was default in payment. The finding regarding service of notice is concerned, it is admitted by the witnesses that the notice was served on them but on legal advise they have refused to receive the said notice. Raising of wall by the revisionist-tenant is also not in dispute and a finding has been recorded in this regard against the revisionist-tenant. 6. All finding of facts as well as of law were recorded against the revisionist. Consequential and other issues were also decided by the court below in favour of the landlord. 7. I have gone to the finding of facts which are being assailed carefully. I am of the opinion that such finding are based on documentary and oral evidence on record, which has been properly and correctly appreciated and there is no scope of re appreciate of the same in revision. There is no legal infirmity in the judgment of the court below. 8. In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the judgment and order of the court below in the present revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. However, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an undertaking by the revisionist-tenant before the Court below, it is provided that: (1) The tenant-revisionist shall handover the peaceful possession of the property in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 31.5.2016. 9. However, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an undertaking by the revisionist-tenant before the Court below, it is provided that: (1) The tenant-revisionist shall handover the peaceful possession of the property in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 31.5.2016. (2) The tenant-revisionist shall file the undertaking before the Court below to the said effect within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; (3) The tenant-revisionist shall pay damages @ L 1500/- per month by 07th day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below and the landlord is at liberty to withdraw the said amount; (4) In the undertaking the tenant-revisionist shall also state that he will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the property in dispute; (5) Subject to filing of the said undertaking, the tenant-revisionist shall not be evicted from the property in question till the aforesaid period; (6) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. 10. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed.