IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3889 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13th July, 2010 Vinay Kumar Bawa … Petitioner Versus Smt. Kiranwati Gupta … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-tenant makes a grievance that the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has erred in rejecting the defence of the petitioner under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It is submitted that the Rent Controller failed to appreciate that the landlady, qua the petitioner, was Smt.Anjna Gupta and not Smt.Kiranwati Gupta, who was a co-owner. It is further submitted that Smt.Kiranwati Gupta had retired on 31st December, 2007 and the house is not required by her for her personal necessity. The Rent Controller also considered the rights of the co-owner and held that she was also a universal landlady. Further taking into consideration the fact that Smt.Kiranwati Gupta had retired from Government service, it was held that she being a specified landlady, was entitled to evict the respondent. On observations made by the Court that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, unless any patent illegality or infirmity is pointed out, counsel Civil Revision No.3889 of 2010 for the petitioner has, in a very fair manner, stated that in case six months’ time is granted to make an alternative arrangement, he will not press the present revision petition and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is hesitant to examine the merits of the case on factual aspect. Considering the fact that the respondent had retired on 31st December, 2007 and later-on has not occupied the house for three years, this Court is of the opinion that in case six months’ time is granted to the petitioner, it will facilitate smooth handing over of actual physical vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent- landlady. Thus, as prayed, present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner is granted six months’ time to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the respondent- landlady, subject to the condition that he will file an undertaking to this effect in the trial Court. The undertaking shall further state that the petitioner shall pay the rent of following months on or before the 7th day of each month and that the entire arrears of rent shall be paid. The undertaking be filed on or before 18th of August, 2010. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 13, 2010 rps 2