Civil Revision No.7975 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7975 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:07.09.2011 Trilok Chand @ Tota ....petitioner Versus Smt.Ganesh Kumari .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the respondent *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned orders of eviction and dismissal of appeal, passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala and Appellate Authority, Ambala, respectively. Eviction of the petitioner has been ordered by the courts below on the ground that demised premises are required by the landlady for her personal necessity. On December 08, 2010, this Court came to the conclusion that the findings of the courts below need not be disturbed. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted one year's time to hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord. On the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the following order was passed: Present: Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Civil Revision No.7975 of 2010(O & M) 2 On the observation made by this Court that the concurrent finding, recorded by both the Courts below that the demised premises is required by the landlady for her personal necessity, cannot be disturbed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running the business of dry cleaning for the last 50 years, therefore, sufficient time be granted to him to make an alternative arrangement. Learned counsel further submits that since livelihood of the petitioner will be affected and he has large family to support, therefore, one year's time be granted to the petitioner to make an alternative arrangement. On this score alone, issue notice of motion for 14.01.2011. Till then, dispossession of the petitioner, from the demised premises, shall remain stayed. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in case the petitioner is allowed one year's time from the aforesaid date to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent on or before the time granted by this Court subject to the condition that the petitioner shall make the payment of arrears within two months and shall keep on making the advance payment of rent by 10th of every month, up to the date of handing over the possession and that the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent, on or before the date fixed by the Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A consensus has been reached between the parties and petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises on or before 31.01.2012 Civil Revision No.7975 of 2010(O & M) 3 subject to payment of arrears, if any, within two months from today. The petitioner shall keep on making advance payment of future rent by 10th of every month till the date of vacation and shall also file an undertaking as aforesaid. This petition is dismissed with the observations that the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises on or before 31.01.2012 to the respondent. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month to the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession of demised premises to the respondents on or before 31.01.2012 and shall also make payment of arrears, if any within two months from today and shall keep on making payment of future rent in advance i.e.by 10th of every month till the date of vacation of the premises in dispute. In case of any violation of the aforesaid statement/undertaking made before the Court, the eviction order shall come into force, immediately. It is also clarified that in case the petitioner fails to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises on or before 31.01.2012, the respondent shall be entitled to initiate the contempt proceedings against the petitioner in addition to the execution of the impugned orders of eviction. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 07.09.2011 neenu