Civil Revision No. 1279 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1279 of 2010 Date of decision : 3.3.2010 B.R.Singh Petitioner Versus Nirmaljit Kaur Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The concurrent grant of an order (in favour of the respondent-landlady against the petitioner-tenant) by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 1.9.2009 and the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.2.2010 notwithstanding, the respondent-landlady is still not lodged in the tenanted premises ( i.e. Flat No. 5035 Sector 38, West, Chandigarh) which premises continue to be under the occupation of the petitioner-tenant. Both the Courts recorded a finding upholding the plea of personal necessity raised by the respondent-landlady in terms of provisions of Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act'). Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Civil Revision No. 1279 of 2010 -2- *** argues that the respondent-landlady is not entitled to the possession of tenanted premises as she is comfortably lodged in the Government accommodation where she can continue to reside for a reasonable period of time. It is further argued that the petitioner- tenant is in the process of raising construction of his own house and it will be feasible for him to shift to those premises only after the construction of that house come up. Even on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority are not relate-able to the material obtaining on the file. That the respondent-landlady retired on superannuation with effect from 31.10.2009 is proved by ample material available on the record. The respondent-landlord does not dispute that she is presently lodged in the Government accommodation but her learned counsel has shown to the Court a notice which she had received from the Chandigarh Administration for vacation of the Government accommodation which she was entitled to occupy only during her tenure as a public servant. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that a public servant in the Union Territory, Chandigarh, can retain the allotted accommodation only for a period of four months after the retirement. It may be noticed, at the very outset, that there is nothing on record whatsoever which could invalidate the finding in favour of the respondent-landlady. The present is a pure and simple case wherein she applied for the ejectment of the tenant from the Civil Revision No. 1279 of 2010 -3- *** tenanted premises as she requires the same for her own use and occupation. A tenant just cannot deny that locus to the respondent- landlady. Insofar as the other part of the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it too is neither here nor there. A tenant cannot resist eviction from tenanted premises just because he is in the process of constructing own house. However, that part of the request was put to the learned counsel for the respondent-landlady who sought instructions in the context from the respondent-landlady who is present in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the petitioner may be given atleast six months time to vacate the tenanted premises. In that context, she offered that the petitioner would pay amount of penal rent which the respondent- landlady has to pay to Chandigarh Administration for the period of over-stay in the Govt. accommodation. She argues that the petitioner-tenant shall not, however, pay the rent agreed otherwise to the respondent-landlady. Learned counsel for the respondent states, under instructions from the respondent, that two months time may be granted to the petitioner subject, ofcourse, to his forwarding to the respondent-landlady, the amount of penal rent payable by her to the Chandigarh Administration + routine agreed rent. In the context of payment for routine agreed rent, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the item is not acceptable to the petitioner- tenant. Civil Revision No. 1279 of 2010 -4- *** The petitioner-tenant cannot have the cake and eat it too, particularly in view of the fact that he was ordered to be ejected by the learned Rent Controller and that finding stands affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. It is, thus, not possible for the parties to arrive at a consensual arrangement. Further, it requires notice that the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any material on the record on basis of which a plea for invalidation of the impugned finding could be raised. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. The petitioner-tenant shall have one month time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. March 03, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE