IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.229 of 2007. Date of decision: 10.09.2008. Smt.Vijay Mehra …Petitioner Versus Sh.Amit Arora & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents 1, 3 and 4: Mr.Y.P. Sood, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below ordering the eviction of the petitioner, tenant herein. The learned Rent Controller, held in favour of the landlord holding that the premises are required for rebuilding and reconstruction, that they have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the tenant is in arrears of rent. The tenant- petitioner did not lead any evidence in the case despite repeated opportunities having been granted. On an appeal preferred to the learned appellate Authority, the evidence was reconsidered in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 detail holding that the building plan Ex.PW-1/A stands sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, as proved by PW-1 Smt.Shashi Thakur, the age of the building and necessity for reconstruction being proved by PW-2, one of the landlord, Amit Arora and the condition of the building certified to be unfit and in a state of collapse by PW-3 Surjeet Singh who appeared as an expert and proved on record his report Ex.PW-3/A, stating that the building requires reconstruction. The learned appellate Authority also holds that despite repeated opportunities having been granted to the tenant, petitioner herein, to lead evidence in favour of her defence, she did not bring any evidence on record and accordingly vide order of the Rent Controller dated 2nd March, 2007 the evidence of the tenant was closed. On a conspectus of the entire evidence on record, the learned appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The tenant is now in revision. It may also be noted that the other tenant in the premises, H.P. Financial Corporation, has compromised the matter by agreeing to hand over possession of half portion of the demised premises to the landlord. I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence nor do I find any ground for interference in the present case. The evidence of the landlord has remained un-rebutted and the tenant has not taken any step to prove by positive evidence that 3 the statutory requirements have not been met. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. On the plea of the tenant that adequate time should be given to vacate the premises, I have considered the matter in detail. The tenant prays that the execution of the eviction order be stayed for a period of two years i.e. up to 30th September, 2010 to enable her to make out an arrangement. By consent of the parties the following order is passed:- (1) The execution of the eviction order shall remain stayed till 30th September, 2010 subject to the conditions:- (a) That the tenant herein shall deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 30th September, 2010; (b) The tenant either by herself or through any member of her family, agent, attorney or any person whatsoever shall not create or cause to be created any encumbrance, lease or burden on the property, so that delivery of vacant and peaceful possession is obstructed. (c) The premises will be used by her for residential purposes only and the nature of its user will not be converted nor will any damage be caused or allowed to be caused to the premises. 4 (d) The tenant shall pay and deposit all arrears of use and occupation, if any, on or before 30th November, 2008. In addition, the regular use and occupation charges which would be the rent being charged currently, will be paid by the tenant regularly on or before the 10th of every month. (2) That an affidavit by way of undertaking of these conditions shall be filed in this Court within a period of four weeks from today. The affidavit of undertaking shall also contain conditions that:- (a) That in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions, the eviction order shall revive and become executable forthwith. In addition the petitioner herein will be liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act in addition to any other proceedings in accordance with law; (b) That the affidavit shall state in unequivocal terms that these conditions have been accepted and the petitioner abides and is bound by the same. September 10, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge