Summarize the following court judgment. ecial Leave Petition (C) No. 5628 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 9 18 of 1987. P.P. Rao and Shakeel Ahmed for the Petitioner. S.C. Maheshwari	 P.K. Chakravarti	 Ms. Sandhya Goswami and V.K. Bhardwaj for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered We have heard this case arising out of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973. We feel that this case is fully covered by the decision of Hon 'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji & Hon 'ble Mr. Justice Ranganathan in Atma Ram Mittal vs Ishwar Singh Punia	 122 ; We respectfully agree with the princi ple enunciated in that decision. The special leave petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S.C. Maheshwari states that the decree will not be executed till 30th April	 1990 subject to an undertaking on usual terms being filed in this Court within four weeks from today. If the undertaking is not filed	 the decree shall become executable forthwith. G.N. Petition dis missed.

Applying the principle enunciated in Atma Ram Mittal vs Ishwar Singh Punia; 	 	 this Court dismissed the special leave petition	 and	 HELD: 1.1 The exemption would apply for a period of ten years and will continue to be available until suit is dis posed of or adjudicated. [121H] 1.2 If the petitioner fails to file an undertaking on usual terms	 the decree shall become executable forthwith. [122B]