Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.8.2010 Charanjit Singh …Petitioner Versus Ram Parkash and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Roshan Lal Shama, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 20430-CII of 2010 Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Exemption is granted from filing of a certified copy of judgment dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P1). Civil Misc. No. 20431-CII of 2010 Civil Misc. Application is allowed. A copy of judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 793 of 2010, titled as “Davinder Pal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others”, passed by this Court on 23.7.2010 is taken on record. Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2009 Respondent No.1 Ram Parkash and his wife Satya Rani, Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2009 (O&M) 2 being landlord, filed an application for causing ejectment of petitioner/tenant Charanjit Singh. It was stated therein that landlord Ram Parkash was running a shop of repair of diesel engines in the municipal limits of Rupnagar. It was further pleaded that Ram Parkash along with his wife had purchased a shop from one Amarjit Singh on 28.6.2004. It was further stated that initially the rate of rent was Rs.700/- per month and lateron it was enhanced to Rs.1,250/- per month. It was further pleaded that Ram Parkash was having a land of Punjab State Irrigation Department on lease for 25 years upon which he made a temporary construction with old bricks smeared with mud wherefrom a spare parts' shop was being run by his son Rakesh Kumar. Due to increase in the width of the national highway, son of the landlord was to be uprooted from the land which was on lease from Punjab State Irrigation Department. Therefore, it was submitted that after their dispossession by the Government from the site, for the need of the son, eviction of the petitioner/tenant was necessary. This ground was accepted by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner, today, has filed Civil Misc. Application No. 20430-CII of 2010 and has placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 23.7.2010, passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 793 of 2010, to say that an alternative site is being allotted to the respondents/landlords in lieu of the land over which their son is running business. It is further submitted that the LPA Bench has permitted the landlords to raise temporary construction on the alternative site. Thus, it is urged that the ground of personal necessity has come to an end because an alternative site is being provided to the landlords, Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2009 (O&M) 3 wherefrom their son can start his business. I am not impressed by the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a common knowledge that the new area, where an alternative site is to be allotted, will take sufficient time for commencement of the business. Whether the business will be successful or not, will depend upon the fact as to if the residents of the vicinity will frequent that place for carrying transport repair and purchase of spare parts. Once the landlord is having a shop near the premises wherefrom he is to be dispossessed, it makes a better business sense for him to start business afresh from the demised shop which is in possession of the tenant. Somewhat similar arguments were also raised before the Rent Controller. It was submitted that the landlord was having other two shops at Rupnagar. The Rent Controller rejected the plea of the tenant, for the reasons, enumerated below:- “...The premises in dispute in the present case are located near Nangal Chowk, Ropar, which is nearest shop where Rakesh Kumar is already running his business. In case, the applicants are of the opinion that their son Rakesh Kumar do the good business at the premises in dispute, the applicants have got every right to evict the respondent for the personal necessity of their son Rakesh Kumar”. This finding has also been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is now a well settled legal proposition that it is for the landlord to decide as to which is a more suitable place for running his business. The Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2009 (O&M) 4 tenant cannot say that the landlord should go to another shop to start his business or go to the place where an alternative site is to be allotted. The Appellate Authority, Rupnagar, held as under:- “...Thus, own witness of the tenant/appellant admits that the shop which is in possession of son of the landlords is not fit and is in dilapidated condition”. The solitary point canvassed before me, by learned counsel for the petitioner, that since an alternative site is being allotted to the landlord wherefrom his son should start his business, as stated earlier, cannot be accepted because he is doing his business at a place which is almost an automobile market and from the present site he has to shift to the demised shop, which is in possession of the petitioner. It will make better business sense. Therefore, the personal necessity of the landlord is made out. At this stage, Mr. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate, has caused appearance for the respondent/landlords along with his son, for whose personal necessity the eviction petition was filed. Mr. Khullar submits that since the parties are in the same trade, therefore, it will be better for them to apart gracefully. He further submits that in case, the petitioner is ready to file an undertaking to vacate the premises within a period of one year and would clear the rent, he would have no objection thereto. Mr. Sharma, on instructions from petitioner/tenant-Charanjit Singh, who is present in the Court, submits that he will readily accept the offer made by learned counsel for the respondent/landlords and the present revision petition be dismissed as withdrawn, in lieu of the Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2009 (O&M) 5 compromise arrived at between the parties. This Court is of the view that due sanctity ought to be given to the broad consensus arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties submit that they have agreed that 50% of the arrears of rent, which is approximately amounting to Rs.60,000/-, shall be waived off by the respondent/landlords. As prayed, the present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, a period of one year, commencing from 1.9.2010, is granted to the petitioner/tenant to make an alternative arrangement subject to his furnishing an undertaking to the Court of Rent Controller, Rupnagar, that he shall hand over actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent/landlords. The undertaking will also state that the rent due for following months shall be paid on or before 7th of each month. The undertaking shall be filed in the Court of Rent Controller, Rupnagar,on or before 15.9.2010. The petitioner shall also deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- as 50% of the arrears of rent, in the Court of the Rent Controller, Rupnagar, in three equated quarterly instalments. First instalment shall be payable on 1.10.2010, thereafter on 1.1.2011 and then on 1.4.2011. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 18, 2010 “DK”