JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. – Heard Sri P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The revisionist has come up challenging the order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Execution Court dismissing the objection filed by the revisionist being Paper No. 15-Ga (2) praying for dismissal of the execution case. The submission is that the execution court has erred in not considering the earlier order dated 7.2.2014 passed by the Execution Court on account of satisfaction of plaintiff-landlord, as such the order dated 30.10.2015 is patently illegal. He further submitted that the further execution proceedings are barred by promissory estoppel created by conduct of the decree holder. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. The suit of the landlord was decreed vide judgment dated 18.4.2012 passed by the Jude Small Cause Courts/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Saharanpur in Suit No. 20 of 2010. Subsequently, the execution proceedings were dismissed on the basis that some compromise is taking place between the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that ultimately the compromise was not executed between the parties and therefore a fresh execution being Case No. 1 of 2015 was filed against which the objection Paper No. 15- Ga (2) was filed by the revisionist, which has been rejected. It is not in dispute that in fact the revisionist-Bank had offered to pay rent @ L 4,10,000/- w.e.f. 1.12.2012 and on this basis agreement was to be executed, which ultimately was not executed by the parties due to non-agreement on some terms of the proposed agreement. Hence, dismissal of earlier Execution Case No. 01 of 2013 based on offer of the Bank would not render the landlord remediless. 6. In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order of the court below in the present revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. At this stage learned counsel for the revisionist prays that the effects of the revisionist cannot be removed in one day and therefore, a reasonable time is required for vacating the premises and he prays for one year time. 8. 7. At this stage learned counsel for the revisionist prays that the effects of the revisionist cannot be removed in one day and therefore, a reasonable time is required for vacating the premises and he prays for one year time. 8. 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 30.6.2016. (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 4,10,000/- plus service tax 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. 9. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed.