Civil Revision No. 6095 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6095 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.9.2010 Amolak Singh …Petitioner Versus S. Kartar Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landlord had instituted the eviction petition on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,350/- per month w.e.f. 1.6.2006 to 31.8.2007 and further that he has made material additions and alterations in the demised shop, without the written consent of the landlord, which impaired its value and utility. Another ground pleaded was that the respondent is the source of nuisance to the landlord and also to the neighbours. Lastly, it was pleaded that the demised shop was required for the use and occupation of the respondent/landlord as he intended to run a grocery shop therein to earn his livelihood. The Rent Controller, Amritsar, vide his order dated 1.10.2009, came to the conclusion that the rent of the demised shop was Rs.350/- Civil Revision No. 6095 of 2010 2 per month and the same was tendered by the tenant. Thus, the ground of non payment of rent was not available to the landlord. However, the Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the petitioner/tenant on the grounds, firstly that he has made material additions and alterations in the demised shop, which impaired its value and utility. Secondly, it was held that the personal necessity of the landlord has been made out. The Appellate Authority, Amritsar, vide his order dated 13.8.2010, has reversed the finding, recorded by the Rent Controller, regarding the material alterations and additions, but affirmed the finding of personal necessity. Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the respondent/landlord is aged about 80 years and he is not in a position to run the grocery shop. Thus, the ground of personal necessity is a mere excuse to get the shop vacated. Both the Courts below found merit in the contention of the landlord that his son has expired; he has to look after the family and therefore, he intended to run the business of grocery shop in the demised premises. On the observation made by this Court that the finding recorded by both the Courts below that personal necessity of the landlord is made out, is not perverse and the Revisional Court will not re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from petitioner-Amolak Singh, who is present in the Court, has submitted that he will not press the present revision petition and pray to this Court that sufficient time be granted to make alternative arrangement as the petitioner has to clear the huge inventory of the shop. Civil Revision No. 6095 of 2010 3 I find merit in the alternative submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. As prayed, the present revision petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, a period of eight months, commencing from 1.10.2010, is granted to the petitioner/tenant to make an alternative arrangement subject to his furnishing an undertaking on or before 15.10.2010 to the Court of Rent Controller, Amritsar, that he will hand over actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent/landlord by 31.5.2011. The undertaking will also state that the rent due for following months shall be paid on or before 7th of each month. The entire arrears of rent, if any, shall be deposited in the Court of Rent Controller, Amritsar, by 1.10.2010. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 21, 2010 “DK”