Civil Revision No. 1588 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 1588 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.10.2010 Surinder alias Surinder Bagga …Petitioner Versus Joga Singh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the landlord was the owner of three shops, out of which two were got vacated during the pendency of the eviction petition, therefore, both the Courts below have committed a grave error in ordering eviction of the petitioner from the third shop. To controvert this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it was specifically pleaded by the landlord that one shop is required for settling Jagga one son and qua the present shop, Joga Singh, another son of the landlord, is to be settled, who intended to run the business of photography. He has further referred to the finding Civil Revision No. 1588 of 2010 2 recorded by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, who has specifically stated that the landlord has three sons and all of them are to be adjusted in three shops. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is running the business of Photostat and in case he is granted a sufficient time to make an alternative arrangement, he shall voluntarily vacate the demised shop. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties have submitted that in case a period of one year and three months is granted to the petitioner/tenant, it will be just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since learned counsel for the respondents has agreed to grant a time, as prayed, he will not press the present revision petition and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. Request, made by learned counsel for the petitioner, is accepted. As prayed, the present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner shall continue to remain in possession of the demised shop for the period of one year and three months, commencing from 1.12.2010, subject to his furnishing an undertaking, on or before the said date, to the Court of Rent Controller, Jalandhar, that he will hand over the actual physical vacant possession of the demised shop to the landlord. The undertaking will also state that the rent due for following months shall be paid on or before 7th of each month. The entire arrears of rent, if any, shall be deposited in the Court Civil Revision No. 1588 of 2010 3 of Rent Controller, Jalandhar, by 1.12.2010. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 29, 2010 “DK”