Civil Revision No.1493 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1493 of 2010 Date of decision: November 29, 2010. Anwar Ali ...Petitioner(s) v. Gian Kaur ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harpreet Matharu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Shri Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Notice was sent to the petitioner-tenant, who filed an application to contest the eviction petition. The Rent Controller came to conclusion that the respondent-landlord is a Non-Resident Indian and is owner of the property for more than 5 years and his bona fide necessity is proved and hence leave to contest was declined. A preliminary objection has been raised in the present revision petition that the Rent Controller had committed a grave error in causing eviction of the tenant whose application for leave to defend was declined. It was urged that Rent Controller ought to have examined respondent-landlord Civil Revision No.1493 of 2010 -: 2 :- before eviction order was passed. and had not even examined the respondent-landlord while doing so. This objection was noticed by a Coordinate Bench and was made a subject matter of reference to a Larger Bench. A Full Bench of this Court in this very case held that once leave to defend is refused, as an automatic consequence, order of eviction can be passed. Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions from Ms. Harpreet Matharu, Advocate, states that since the preliminary argument raised on behalf of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Full Bench of this Court, he prays this Court that a sufficient time be granted to make an alternative arrangement. It is further prayed that if such a prayer is accepted, present petition be dismissed as not pressed. Counsel for the petitioner prays that one year's time shall be adequate. Shri Sunil Chadha, Counsel appearing for the respondent- landlord, states that six months time should be granted to the petitioner- tenant to hand over the vacant peaceful physical possession of the demised premises. During course of arguments, Counsel for the parties arrived at a broad consensus that in case nine months time is granted, it will bring an end to the long pending litigation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that due sanctity should be granted to the consensus arrived at between the parties. Hence, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, nine months time is granted to the petitioner, subject to filing an undertaking that he shall pay the entire arrears of rent on or before the 10th day of each month. In the undertaking, it shall be specifically stated that Civil Revision No.1493 of 2010 -: 3 :- peaceful vacant physical possession of the demised property shall be handed over to the respondent-landlord on 1.9.2011. The undertaking along with arrears be deposited in the Court of concerned Rent Controller within one month from today. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] November 29, 2010. Judge kadyan