IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6389 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 19th November, 2008 Anil Kumar … Petitioner Versus Smt. Parkash Kaur and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the respondent-caveators. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Two courts below have held that the premises were let out for the poultry farm, but same were being used for building material and shuttering purposes and there is a change of user. For arriving at these findings, Rent Controller relied upon the testimony of Suresh Kumar PW-2, Tarsem Lal PW-3 and Didar Singh PW- 4. He also took into account the rent receipts (Ex.PW-5/A to PW-5/G), wherein it has been categorically reflected that the premises were being used for running poultry farm. Rent Controller also noticed the fact that the tenant himself has not appeared and his attorney appeared as a witness. To the question asked as to why the tenant had not appeared, it has been disclosed that tenant, in relation to his business, often visit New Zealand. Mr.S.K. Pipat assisted by Mr.Ramanjeet Singh, has stated that rent note, wherein it was noticed that premises have been let out for poultry farm, cannot be read as the same is not registered and it could be read only for the collateral purposes. Civil Revision No. 6389 of 2008 (O&M) At this stage, the Court observed that the testimony of the witnesses examined by the landlord aspire confidence and reliance can be placed upon the same, in view of the rent receipts issued by the landlord and signed by the tenant. Mr. Pipat has very fairly stated that since there is a concurrent finding of fact regarding change of user recorded by two Courts below, he will not be in a position to dislodge the same. He states that he be permitted to make alternative prayer that sufficient time be granted in favour of the tenant petitioner to make alternative arrangement. At this stage, Mr.S.S. Rangi, who is appearing for the respondent caveators, has stated that he has no objection in case sufficient time is granted to the petitioner tenant. During the course of arguments, a consensus has been formulated by the counsel for the parties that one year time can be granted to the tenant. I am of the view that due sanctity ought to be extended to the consensus formulated by the counsel for the parties. Therefore, one year time is granted to the tenant petitioner to vacate the demised premises, subject to filing an undertaking in the Court of concerned Rent Controller that the premises shall be vacated on or before 1st December, 2009. The undertaking shall also contain a condition that arrears of rent, if any, shall also be paid. Furthermore, it shall also contain a condition that whatever rent was being paid or tendered by the tenant, same shall be deposited as use and occupation charges in the Court of concerned Rent Controller on or before 7th of each month. As prayed by Mr.S.K. Pipat, present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 19, 2008 rps 2