Civil Revision No. 7205 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 7205 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.11.2010 Vijay Kumar …Petitioner Versus Om Parkash Bansal …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Respondent/landlord Om Parkash Bansal retired from the Punjab State Education Board, Mohali, on 28.2.2005. Thereafter, he instituted an eviction petition to cause ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. It was stated by him that after retirement, he intended to start his own business in the demised shop as he has got retiral benefits amounting to ` 7,50,000/-, which are sufficient for running the business. The ground of personal necessity was assailed by the tenant on the following grounds:- A) Earlier, father of respondent-Om Parkash Bansal had instituted the eviction petition in the year 1996 and the same was compromised. The rent was enhanced from ` 550/- to ` 2,000/- per month. This Civil Revision No. 7205 of 2010 2 ground was rejected by both the Courts below holding that the ejectment petition was instituted on 22.1.1996 and the same was withdrawn on the basis of compromise dated 17.5.1999. B) The second ground raised before both the Courts below was that the landlord filed a suit for possession on the basis of notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration that the property will not fall within the ambit of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”). Subsequently, that notification was quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 7.11.2006 and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. This fact was made basis of the argument to say that the need of landlord is not made out as he only intended to increase the rent. Both the Courts below also considered this aspect and held that since the notification was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court and pleading to this effect was made in the ejectment petition, this ground would not weigh in favour of the tenant. C) Lastly, it was urged that in the cross-examination, the landlord had admitted that his son, who had to assist him in running the business, after resigning from M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited had joined M/s Venus Remedies Limited as Area Sales Civil Revision No. 7205 of 2010 3 Manager/Regional Manager. Therefore, the ground of personal necessity qua the son of the landlord is not proved. This argument is liable to be rejected as son of the landlord could not remain unemployed till the culmination of the eviction proceedings. Having perused the judgments of both the Courts below and hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the Revisional Court will be hesitant to re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. At this stage, Mr. Arihant Jain, on instructions from petitioner- Vijay Kumar, has submitted that in case sufficient time is granted to the petitioner to make an alternative arrangement, he will handover actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord and shall not press the present revision petition. Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, has caused appearance for the respondent/landlord and has submitted that in case the tenant handover actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord and furnish an undertaking to the Court of Rent Controller, Chandigarh, to this effect, he has no objection to the acceptance of alternative submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that in case one year time is granted to the tenant to hand over actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord, the same will be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since learned counsel for the landlord has accepted the Civil Revision No. 7205 of 2010 4 proposal made by learned counsel for the tenant, the present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn, subject to filing of an undertaking by the petitioner/tenant, in the Court of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, on or before 1.12.2010, that he will handover actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord on 1.12.2011. The undertaking shall also state that the entire arrears of rent shall be paid on or before 1.12.2010 and the rent due for following months shall be paid on or before 7th of each month. Learned counsel for the parties have also agreed that the rent, which has been determined by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, relying upon the judgment rendered in M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2005(1) Rent Control Reporter 1, shall be the amount of rent for the purpose of arrears of rent and future rent as well. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 8, 2010 “DK”