JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. – The defendant/tenant has approached this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated 30 September 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahganj in Revision No. 1 of 2015 arising from the SCC Suit No. 13 of 2009 for eviction, arrears of rent and damages in respect of the suit property which is a shop. 2. Five issues were framed by the court of first instance, issue no. 3, as to whether after new construction of the building a new tenancy existed between the parties since October 2004. 3. The courts below upon considering the evidence and material available on record noted that the applicant failed to establish that his old/earlier tenancy continued upon re-induction in the new premises by the respondent. 4. The applicant instituted a suit being Suit No. 94 of 2002 (Rajnarayan Kapoor v. Triloki Nath) for injunction, in the said suit the agreement entered into between the parties upon demolition of the suit property was placed on record, but the certified copy of the agreement was not placed on record in the present suit, neither the tenant was able to prove that the old tenancy continued, further, as to whether it was agreed between the parties that after construction the applicant would be re-inducted on the same terms and conditions. The suit was decreed. 5. In revision under Section 25, the revisional court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant re-agitated the same issue before this court and tried to persuade the court to re-appreciate the evidence and material available on record in respect of the issue no. 3 so as to arrive at a finding different from that of the courts below. 7. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not sitting in appeal over the concurrent finding recorded by the court below, learned counsel for the applicant failed to show any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 8. The material and evidence that was placed on record was considered and appreciated by the court below to return a concurrent finding on issue no. 3. 9. It is made clear that no other point was pressed. 10. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. 3. 9. It is made clear that no other point was pressed. 10. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. However, it is provided that in case the applicant gives an undertaking on oath before the court below that he shall vacate the premise in question and hand over the possession of the same peacefully to the respondent-landlords on or before 30 June 2016, eviction of the applicant be not done till then. The aforesaid undertaking on oath shall be given by the applicant before the court below within a period of fifteen days from today and the applicant shall deposit Rs. 600/- monthly rent of the premises in question before the court below and shall continue to deposit the same by 07th of each calendar month till the vacation of the premises in question, which amount may be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-landlords after due verification by the court concerned. 13. In case of default, protection granted above to the applicant shall automatically stand vacated.