Civil Revision No. 1456 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1456 of 2010 Date of decision : 4.3.2010 Usha Bhagat Petitioner Versus Deepak Kumar Sharma Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-landlord, a widow, filed a petition under Section 13 of of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to obtain the ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity. The filing of the petition came about initially sometime prior to the year 2008. That petition had to be withdrawn in view of the notification dated 7.11.2009 issued by the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh. That notification came to be quashed by the Apex Court. The petition for ejectment came to be filed again in the year 2008. The respondent herein has not paid up the arrears of rent since June, 2001. The petitioner herein applied for the ejectment of the respondent from the tenanted premises on a plea of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. Inspite of the pendency of petition Civil Revision No. 1456 of 2010 -2- **** since the year 2008, not much headway has been made at the trial and the case is being adjourned from time to time for one reason or the other. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that he would be content and interests of justice would be served if a time bound disposal of the rent petition on merits is ordered by this Court. The petition shall stand disposed of according with a direction to learned Rent Controller to dispose of the petition itself within three months from the next date of hearing. It is otherwise stated at the bar that the matter is fixed for 5.3.2010 for cross- examination on the petitioner-landlady. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the mandate of the rent legislation that ejectment petitions based on an averment of personal necessity deserve priority. Cases have come to the notice of this Court where these cases did not get the required attention inspite of the fact that the orders for time bound disposal had been granted by this Court. One such case (Civil Revision No.1447 of 2010-Hardyal Chand and others Vs. Parshotam Sharma and others ) is fixed before this Court today itself. In that case, a Coordinate Bench (Surya Kant, J.) of this Court directed the learned Rent Controller (vide order dated 6.11.2009, granted in Civil Revision No.6461 of 2009) to decide the application filed by the respondent- tenant on the date fixed i.e. 16.11.2009. It is today only that another petition had been filed by the same petitioners for issuance of a fresh direction to the learned Rent Controller to decide the application as Civil Revision No. 1456 of 2010 -3- **** well as the trial. The circumstances apparent from that file and also present file do not present a very happy scenario. The Rent Controllers, this Court hopes and trusts would appreciate the spirit of the Rent legislation and also understand the compulsive mandate of this Court; violation whereof could have unenviable implications. Though this Court is not unmindful of the fact that the pendency before the Trial Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is fairly heavy, this Court would expect the officers to prioritize their file and accord deserve priority to cases of indicates category. Disposed of accordingly. March 04, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE