IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6422 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.10.2011 Rajinder Yadav -----Petitioner Vs. Ranjit Singh & another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order of eviction dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh as well as judgment dated 11.8.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby his appeal against the order of eviction has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was ordered from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and change of user of the demised premises. It is relevant to refer to the observations of the Appellate Authority which reads thus:- C.R. No.6422 of 2011 “13. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and find no merit in any of the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. So far as the rate of rent is concerned, the appellant-tenant when appeared in the witnesses box as RW-1 had admitted in his cross examination that the writing Ex.P-1 was executed by him. He had written the same in favour of Ranjit Singh. He also identified his signatures on writing Ex.P-1 besides contents thereof. In the copy of plaint Ex.P-2, the appellant-tenant has also admitted that he gave a writing with a promise that he will vacate the premises in question. The writing Ex. P-1 goes to show that the premises in question was let out to the appellant-tenant and the rate of rent was settled as Rs.1400/- per month. The burden to prove the payment of rent was upon the appellant-tenant but he has failed to prove the same on record that he has paid the arrears of rent in the Court w.e.f. September, 2001 till date as demanded by the respondent- landlord. The Court below has thus, rightly decided the issue No.1 in favour of the respondent-landlord. 14. As regards the change of user of the demised premises, the respondent-landlord examined PW-2 Gian Chand and the petitioner No.1 Ranjit Singh himself appeared as PW-3. They have deposed that the premises in dispute is the part of H.No.2462, Mauli Jagran, U.T., Chandigarh. Appellant-tenant (RW-1) has also admitted in his cross examination that the premises is known as residential house. He has also admitted that he is doing the business in the shop in question under the name and style of M/s Pooja Welding. Thus, he himself has admitted that 2 C.R. No.6422 of 2011 disputed premises is a residential house, he cannot be permitted to run a commercial activity without the consent of respondent-landlords. Even if the appellant-tenant was using the disputed premises for commercial purposes from very inception, respondent-landlord never waived their right to evict him because the premises in question is a residential accommodation and was never let out for commercial purposes. Thus, it stand proved that the premises in dispute was let out to the appellant for residential purpose but he is running a business under the name and style of M/s. Pooja Welding and preparing steel items and thereby changed the user of the demised premises. The findings of Court below on issue No.2, thus, stand affirmed.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was unable to point out any fault in the aforesaid findings, as recorded above. However, the learned counsel submitted before this Court that since the petitioner-tenant was running a business in the demised premises, he be granted some reasonable time to vacate and hand over the same to the respondent-landlord. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to make payment of arrears of rent within two months from today and shall also keep in making the payment of future rent in advance i.e. by 10th of every month. She further stated that the petitioner shall file an undertaking in this regard to the aforesaid effect before the Rent Controller within one month from today on the basis of submissions made 3 C.R. No.6422 of 2011 by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, which shall be binding upon the petitioner. On the basis of submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, by his counsel, this petition is dismissed with the observations that the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord on or before 18.4.2012, subject to the condition that he shall make the payment of arrears of rent, if any, within two months from today and shall keep on paying the entire future rent in advance by the 10th of every month and also that he shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month from today to the aforesaid effect and that he will hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord before the expiry of the time granted by this Court. In case any violation of the aforesaid conditions, the eviction order shall come into existence immediately. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord, as stipulated above, he shall also be liable to be initiated for contempt proceedings in addition to execution of the impugned orders. October 19, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 4