IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7189 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.12.2011 Mohinder Singh -----Petitioner Vs. Sham Lal -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. G.S. Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order of his eviction passed by the authorities below. 2. Noticing the contentions raised before this Court on November 23, 2011, following order was passed:- “This tenant’s revision petition challenging the order of eviction passed by authorities below, whereby, while passing order of eviction a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded to the effect that the demised premises are required for bona fide need of respondent. Instead of challenging the finding on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner has made only one submission before this Court that he is ready to hand- over the vacant possession of the demised premises, C.R. No.7189 of 2011 in case, he is granted one year’s time to vacate the room measuring 9’ x 9’ as shown in the site plan (Annexure ‘P3’) so that he is able to shift his business to some other suitable place. Notice of motion to the aforesaid limited extent only. Service by way of dasti. List on 01.12.2011. It is made clear that if the respondent-landlord is not served on the date fixed, this petition shall be dismissed.” 3. On December 01, 2011, as per office report, service was complete. However, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent-landlord and the case was adjourned to 12.12.2011 for further consideration. The respondent was ordered to be served again through his counsel representing him in the execution proceedings which were stated to be pending. Dispossession of the petitioner was stayed till the next date of hearing. 4. On December 16, 2011, as per office report, service was complete and the case was listed for today. 5. Despite service, no one is present on behalf of the respondent. Thus, this Court has no option but to proceed further. 6. Keeping in view the submissions made before this Court on 23.11.2011 and the fact that appeal against the order of eviction was dismissed on 21.7.2011, this Court dismisses this 2 C.R. No.7189 of 2011 revision petition and grants time to the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent- landlord upto 31.7.2012 subject to the condition that the petitioner-tenant will make the payment of arrears of rent, if any, within two months from today and shall keep on paying the future rent in advance by the 10th of every month and also that he will file an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month from today to the aforesaid effect and that he will hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent- landlord on or before the expiry of the time granted by this Court i.e. 31.7.2012. 8. In case of any violation of the aforesaid conditions, the eviction order shall come into force immediately. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord, as stipulated above, the respondent-landlord may initiate contempt proceedings against him, in addition to execution of the impugned order. December 20, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 3