Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44595 Court No. - 7 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 7 of 2024 Revisionist :- Radheyshyam Singh Opposite Party :- M/S Industrial Gases Limited, Through Principal Office And Power Of Attorney Holder Counsel for Revisionist :- Sarvesh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. (Order on Delay condonation application) 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 2. Cause shown is sufficient. 3. Delay is condoned. 4. The application is allowed. Order on Revision 5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material available on record. None appears for the respondents despite service of notice. 6. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 03, Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No. 82 of 1988. 7. The facts in brief are that the revisionist was in employment with the respondent and was allotted a quarter for staying in pursuance to his employment, subsequently, after the termination of the employment, the revisionist continued in the occupation without any rights, as such, the proceedings have been initiated. After exchange of pleadings as many as four issues were framed in between the parties with regard to the possession over the property in question and has held that he was possessing the property by virtue of his employment and his services has been terminated. With regard to the entitlement of the resideness after the termination of the employment, the same was also decided against him, the Court issued with regard to the eviction was decided in favour of the land-lord and a decree of ejectment and arrears of rent was passed. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the issue, with regard to illegal termination, is subject matter of dispute and till the time the same is decided, the revisionist should be permitted to continue in the premises. Admittedly, the revisionist is about 76 years of age and even if, the contention that he was wrongly terminated is accepted, the same cannot lead to reinstatement, as such, no error can be found with the decree of ejectment with regard to the arrears of rent, as decreed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent states that in case, the revisionist vacates the premises within a period of three months, the decree of rent shall not be pressed. In view of the said, the present revision is disposed of directing that in case, the revisionist vacates the premises within a period of three months, the decree of rent shall not be executed against him. 10. However, in case, the revisionist does not vacate the premises within the aforesaid period, the decree of rent shall also be executed against the revisionist. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench