IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6554 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 2nd December, 2008 Madan Singh … Petitioner Versus Smt. Sudesh Kumari … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present case, the landlady had instituted eviction petition on various grounds. Firstly, that there is non payment of rent and the tenant is in arrears of rent. Secondly, the premises were required for her own use and occupation and thirdly, by constructing an additional room, material addition and alteration has been made in the property, which has impaired the value and utility of the house, as landlady has been exposed to the risk of resumption by the Housing Board, which had allotted the house in question to the landlady. The Court of Rent Controller held that the rent has been tendered, therefore, ground of arrears of rent is not available to the landlady. It further held that she has failed to make out the case of personal necessity. However, it held that the construction of an additional room by the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises, as the building is likely to be resumed by the Housing Board, as the same is against the terms and conditions of allotment. Appellate authority upheld the ground of material impairment to the value and utility of the property because of material alteration made by the tenant. Civil Revision No. 6554 of 2008 (O&M) Mr. S.S. Bains appearing for the petitioner tenant has stated that appellate authority has also taken into consideration the ground of personal necessity, which the appellate authority was precluded to do so, as there was no cross appeal filed by the landlady. On an observation made by this Court that evidence has been appreciated and concurrent finding has been returned by two courts below that the petitioner tenant, by constructing additional room, has impaired the value and utility of the property, Mr.Bains has very fairly stated that he is conscious that a revisional Court cannot re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence, therefore, he be permitted to make an alternative prayer to this Court. He has stated that in case nine months’ time is granted to make alternative arrangement, he will not press the present revision petition. I find merit in the alternative submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner is granted nine months’ time to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the landlady on or before 30th September, 2009. The undertaking shall be filed on or before 1st January, 2009. The undertaking shall also contain a condition that arrears of rent as compensation of use and occupation charges shall be paid or tendered in the Court and thereafter, the rent which was being paid, shall be deposited or tendered by the tenant as use and occupation charges on or before 7th of each following month in the Court of Rent Controller. With these observations made above, present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 2, 2008 rps 2