CR No.2545 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2545 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.04.2011 Hari Om Sharma . . .Petitioner Versus Gurnam Singh . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) CM No.10256-CII-2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. CR No.2545 of 2011 (O&M) The tenant is in revision against the three orders passed on the same day by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh namely (i) dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing application under Section 18(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent and Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’), (ii) dismissing the application for seeking leave to defend on the ground that it has not been filed within 15 days from the date of service of summons, (iii) order passed in the eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act of directing the petitioner/tenant to vacate the demised premises on the ground of personal need of the landlord. As per record, this revision petition was initially filed on 29.3.2011 but it was returned on 30.3.2011 by the Registry with some objections and then it was re-filed on 19.4.2011. The landlord is already on caveat through Mr.S.K. Sood and Mr.Rajesh Sood, Advocates, who are not present in Court. This revision petition is listed before me in the post lunch session as it was not listed in the ordinary manner because the case was not shown in the urgent list of the Court rather it has been listed on a request having been made by learned counsel for the petitioner for fixing it today. CR No.2545 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner has realised that he would not be able to convince the Court on the merits of this case because there is no provision in law for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 18(5) of the Act. He then made a request that since the petitioner is living with his family in the demised premises for quite some time and is being evicted under the order of the Court and his luggage is being thrown on the road, therefore, he may be given some time to vacate the demised premises. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also that the petitioner require some time to seek alternate accommodation, a period of 15 days is granted to him to vacate the demised premises himself and to handover possession to the landlord on or before 5.5.2011. He shall file an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the Rent Controller in this regard and also clear all the arrears of rent, if any due, and shall also pay the rent of 15 days to the landlord. It is made clear that if the petitioner violates any of the condition of the undertaking which is to be furnished by him in terms of the order as prayed by him then he would be liable for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and this revision petition shall also be deemed to be dismissed. In view thereof, petitioner is allowed to retain the demised premises upto 5.5.2011 in terms of the direction given hereinabove. The undertaking shall be given to the Rent Controller by 21.4.2011. Revision petition is disposed of. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this Court. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 19, 2011 JUDGE vivek