CR No.955 of 2007 (O&M) - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.955 of 2007 (O&M) Date Of Decision: 16.09.2009 **** Surinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Dharam Pal Sethi . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the judgement dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sirsa, whereby, the appeal of the respondent-landlord has been allowed and his eviction petition for vacation of a small shop No.5/49 situated at Sirsa on the ground that the same has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, has been accepted. One of the piece of evidence relied upon by the Appellate Authority was, the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) Department, Government of Haryana, who visited the premises in dispute, had reported that the same is in a dilapidated condition and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. During the course of hearing on July 28, 2009 before this Court, counsel for the parties agreed to the suggestion that let the demised premises be re-inspected by the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Division No.1, Sirsa, as the previous incumbent was since been transferred. It was ordered accordingly. CR No.955 of 2007 (O&M) - 2 - Sh. S.S. Sangwan, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.1, PWD B&R Br., Sirsa has now submitted its report dated 24th August, 2009 in a sealed cover which has been opened and reads as follows:- “In compliance of Hon’ble High Court order, the site was inspected by the undersigned on 20.08.2009 in the presence of Sh. Surinder Kumar (petitioner) and Sh. Dharam Pal Sethi (respondent). The premises is a small single storey corner shop. The shop is approximately 40-45 yrs.old. The roof & walls of the shop are in dilapidated shape. Wooden batten roof is covered by galvanized iron sheet (under the wooden batten) to some extent to avoid rain water to enter in the shop. There is an gap of 2 to 4 inches in between roof and back wall (at roof level) and rain water/water flows through the shop. The building/shop is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Sd/- (S.S. Sangwan) Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.1, PWD B&R BR., SIRSA” The report is taken on record and is marked ‘A’. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, states that given some reasonable period to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute, he does not want to press this revision petition on merits. Learned counsel for the respondent, has reluctantly agreed to the suggestions so as to bring this litigation to an end. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i. the petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of rent, if any, upto 30th September, 2009 with the Rent Controller, Sirsa and/or pay to the respondent/landlord by way of demand draft; CR No.955 of 2007 (O&M) - 3 - ii. the future monthly rent shall be paid by him by way of demand draft on or before the 10th day of the every calendar month; iii. subject to the conditions (i) & (ii), above, the petitioner shall be entitled to retain the possession of the premises at his own risk and peril upto 30th June 2010. The petitioner undertakes to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premised peacefully to the respondent-landlord on or before 30th June, 2010. The statement made by the petitioner-tenant, Sh. Surinder Kumar is also recorded and is taken on record. It is made clear that in case of any disobedience to the undertaking given by the petitioner, the respondent-landlord shall be entitled to get possession of the premises with police assistance without prejudice to his right to initiate Contempt of Court proceedings against the petitioner. With the above directions and observations, the revision petition is disposed of. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 16.09.2009 shonkar