Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 9.3.2010 whereby while dismissing the revision, the applicant was allowed time to vacate the premises in question by 31.3.2010 and to pay a sum of Rs. 60 Lakhs per month with effect from February, 2010 for use and occupation of the premises and other equipments.

2. Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate in the course of argument has confined himself to the following four grounds :

(I) The cheques issued by the applicant which have not been encashed and lapsed may be revalidated;

(II) Undertaking to be filed by the applicant before the executing Court to handover the vacant possession by 31st July, 2010 may be filed before this Court;

(III) The applicant, as per the own affidavit to vacate the premises in a phased manner, has not vacated any part; and

(IV) Payment of Rs. 60 Lakhs per month directed by this Court should be without prejudice to the rights to claim damages at the current market rate.

3. In so far as the ground No. (I) is concerned Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has made a statement that within ten days of handing back the expired cheques by the opposite party, the applicant shall revalidate the same and hand the same back to the respondent or any of its officer authorised in this behalf. Considering the statement made, the applicant may revalidate the cheques and hand back the same to the respondent or any of its officer authorised in this behalf within ten days of the receipt of the same.

4. With respect to ground No. (II), it has been urged by Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate that appropriately undertaking ought to have been directed to be given before this Court so that in case of any violation appropriate proceeding could have been drawn against the applicant. In any view of the matter, since the undertaking was to be given by the applicant under the direction of this Court, violation, if any thereof, can very well be taken note of by this Court and appropriate proceedings can be drawn. This Court would not become powerless only because the undertaking has been given before the executing Court. In view of above, the order dated 9.3.2010 does not need any modification on this issue.

5. With respect to point No. (III), Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate has made a statement that in view of the fact that entire premises is to be vacated by 31st July, 2010 hence he is not pressing this issue.

6. With regard to point No. (IV), it has been urged by Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate that the review applicant/opposite party is entitled to claim damages at the current market rate and fixation of Rs. 60 Lakhs per month by this Court should not stand in the way of the review applicant/opposite party in enforcing the rights. It has further been submitted that there was neither any agreement nor any determination by the Court regarding payment to be made for use and occupation of the premises permitted by the Court and the sum of Rs. 60 Lakhs was fixed by the Court on the basis of unilateral offer made by the applicant in their various letters. The said offer was never accepted by the review applicant/opposite party and the unilateral determination should not affect the right to claim damages at the prevailing market rate.

7. In reply, it has been submitted by Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate that if there is any such right available to the opposite party, the same may be enforced in proper proceeding before a proper forum.

8. It is no doubt correct that sum of Rs. 60 Lakhs for use and occupation of the premises directed to be paid in the order under review was not determined by the Court by applying any principle or on the basis of evidence but the amount was assessed only on the basis of the amount in the lease agreement between the parties and the fact that the area of Studio-A was vacated and the possession was handed over to the respondent-review applicant on 3.2.2010.

9