IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3882 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th July, 2009. Shri Bhagwan Petitioner through Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate Versus Har Narayan Respondent through 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Jagadhri whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising a Shop, as well as against the order dated 2.3.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the aforementioned order of eviction. The respondent – landlord filed the present petition, inter- alia, on the ground that [i] the petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.6.2002; [ii] the shop is required by the landlord for bona-fide use and occupation of his son, who is major and married having no source of livelihood; and [iii] the shop in dispute is lying closed without any reasonable cause from last two years. The petitioner – tenant contested the petition. Since he tendered the arrears of rent, the first ground of eviction was no more available to the landlord. As regards the second ground of personal necessity of his son, both the Courts below have held that neither the respondent landlord nor his son have vacated any shop within the Municipal Limits of Yamuna Nagar and there were three shops in the subject premises, out of which one was got vacated by the landlord in the year 2003 but the same was converted into court-yard of the house whereas the second shop has been occupied by the landlord for running the STD/PCO booth. It has been held that the landlord's son does not any other commercial shop or premises where he can start his own business. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the same at length and considering the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below, has come up with a plea that he would not press this revision petition on merits if this Court gives him some reasonable period to vacate. He points out that the respondent – landlord has already filed an execution petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the later aspect of the matter and considering the fact that the petitioner requires some reasonable period to find out an alternative place to shift his business, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner – tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Controller, Jagadhri within one week from the date a certified copy of this order is received, undertaking to vacate the subject premises and hand-over its peaceful vacant possession to the respondent – landlord on or before 31st January, 2010. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he shall pay the arrears of rent, if any, within one month and shall continue to pay the monthly rent before 10th day of each English calendar month till he vacates the premises. The execution of the impugned eviction order dated 16.4.2008 shall remain stayed till 31st January, 2010. Disposed of accordingly. July 15, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE