IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6647 of 2009 Date of decision: 20th August, 2010 Tej Pal and another … Petitioners Versus Sohan Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Bahl, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioners has stated that the respondent- landlord, a Non Resident Indian, had sought eviction on the ground that he had to build a hotel. Learned counsel has further stated that in view of the instructions issued by the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, respondent-landlord will not be able to build the hotel. It is further stated that the ground of personal necessity pleaded by the respondent-landlord is not borne out from the evidence on the file. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that both these pleas are not available to the petitioners-tenants at this stage, as in case of other tenants in the same building, both these contentions were rejected and judgment of this Court has also been affirmed by Hon’ble the Apex Court. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have occupied two shops, in one they are running a grocery Civil Revision No.6647 of 2009 business and in the other sweets business. It is stated that the petitioners have a huge inventory in both the shops, therefore a sufficient time be granted to move to an alternative accommodation. Counsel for the respondent has very fairly stated that the time, as prayed for by the petitioners, can be granted to them to vacate the premises, in case they file an undertaking in the Court of Rent Controller, Nawanshahar that they will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises in question within a stipulated timeframe. During the course of arguments, a broad consensus has been arrived at between the parties that a period of one year will be sufficient for the petitioners-tenants to move to an alternative accommodation. This Court is of the opinion that due sanctity ought to be granted to the broad consensus formulated by counsel for the parties. Accordingly, the petitioners-tenants are granted one year’s time to hand over the actual physical peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-landlord, subject to their filing an undertaking to this effect in the Court of Rent Controller, Nawanshahar. The undertaking shall further state that the petitioners shall pay the rent of following months in advance on or before the 7th day of each month and that the entire arrears of rent shall be paid. The undertaking be filed on or before 15th September, 2010. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 20, 2010 rps 2