1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28-6-1993, on account of absence of the appellant and his counsel. The appellant has applied for restoration of the appeal. On consideration of the grounds mentioned in the restoration appeal and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have restored the appeal to its file and heard it on merits.
2. ' The learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the appeal for some time offered that if his client is granted reasonable time to vacate the premises, he would not press the appeal. We have gone through the impugned order and otherwise find no merit in the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlord after consulting his client who is present in person, agreed that the Court may grant reasonable time to the appellant to vacate the premises provided the appellant undertakes to vacate it on the expiry of the period granted by this Court without resort to execution.
3. Proceedings. Mr. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, undertakes that the appellant will vacate the premises voluntarily and hand over its possession to respondents on A the expiry of the period granted by this Court. Keeping in view the fact that the ejectment case was filed in 1985 and the premises is commercial one, where appellant is carrying on his business for quite some time, we grant time to appellant to vacate the premises till 30-3-1994, with the consent of respondents on the condition that in case the appellant failed to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to respondents 31-3-1994, he will be evicted forthwith without notice and if necessary with force. The appellant will also continue to deposit the rent regularly during this period. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.