IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2718 of 1986 Date of decision: 28th June, 2010 Raj Kumari … Petitioner Versus Gulshan Rai Soni and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Chopra, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner, Raj Kumari has assailed the order passed by the Rent Controller on 4th September, 1984, affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 20th August, 1986. The Rent Controller vide impugned order, had ordered that the respondent-tenant be put back into the demised premises, which consisted of one room, as within one year of the eviction, the premises was let-out by the petitioner-landlady. Both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding that after the eviction of the respondent-tenant having been ordered, it stood proved on the record that the petitioner- landlady had within its one year let-out the premises. The orders of both the Courts below were assailed by filing the present revision petition in the year 1986 and operation of the order, whereby the respondent-tenant was ordered to be put-back into the demised premises, was stayed. A period of 26 years is going to elapse. A Coordinate Bench of this Court on 26th February, 2010, had passed the following order: Civil Revision No.2718 of 1986 “Learned counsel for the petitioner had earlier sought adjournment with a view to explore the feasibility of settlement. The learned counsel for the respondent could not have instructions in view of the fact that she had no contact with the respondent as he had shifted, in the meantime, to another residential address. It is after great effort that the learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to obtain information that the respondent is presently residing at H.No.1051, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the respondent states that she would also get into touch with the respondent and further requests that a notice may be issued to the respondent as well. Notice be issued to the respondent at the above noted address. List on 18.03.2010.” On March 18, 2010, the matter was adjourned to March 19, 2010 and on March 19, 2010 further to March 31, 2010. Thereafter, now the case has come up for hearing today. The Coordinate Bench had rightly formulated a view that taking long pendency of the case and the fact that a period of 26 years has passed, it may not be in the interest of all to put the tenant back in the demised premises, as in the last so many years the tenant may have adjusted to the new environment and it may complicate the interest of other persons, who may have been put in the demised premises. Ms. Pooja Chopra, Advocate appearing for the respondent- tenant, has stated that despite various efforts made, the tenant has not contacted her in the last one year. Learned counsel has prayed for another adjournment to contact the respondent-tenant. Since numerous adjournments have been granted and the case is ripe for arguments for the last about one year, it may be futile to adjourn the matter. Hence, taking totality of circumstances into 2 Civil Revision No.2718 of 1986 consideration, this Court is of the opinion that to compensate the respondent-tenant will be the best course. During the course of arguments, Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate appearing for the petitioner-landlady, has not spurned the suggestion given by the Bench that Rs.1.00 lac be deposited in the trial Court to be reimbursed to the respondent-tenant. Therefore, the present revision petition is hereby disposed of with the following observations: (a) The petitioner-landlady shall deposit Rs.1.00 lac in the Court of Rent Controller, which shall put the amount in a fixed deposit. In case the amount is not deposited, the revision petition shall stand dismissed in view of concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below. (b) In case the respondent-tenant is agreeable to accept the amount of Rs.1.00 lac, the amount of fixed deposit along with the interest accrued thereon shall be released to the respondent-tenant and the impugned orders shall not be given effect to. (c) In case the respondent-tenant is not agreeable to accept the amount of Rs.1.00 lac, the amount of fixed deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner-landlady along with the interest and respondent-tenant will be at liberty to revive the present revision petition. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE June 28, 2010 rps 3