IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6661 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 Inderjit Singh … Petitioner Versus Mrs. Surinder Sangha … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Mr.Sarju Puri appearing for the petitioner has stated before this Court that two Courts below have ordered eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady as the landlady had made a claim that Tarandeep Singh, her son has to commence business of Computer College, therefore, the shop which is in possession of the tenant is required. It was stated that Computer College could not be run from the adjoining shop, which is in possession of the landlady, therefore the shop which is on rent with the petitioner, is required on ground of personal necessity. Two courts below have, not only held the ground of personal necessity, but also negated that at the time of filing of the eviction petition, another shop which was vacated by B.S. Auto, was in possession of the landlady. Mr. Sarju Puri referred to the cross examination and stated that the courts below have committed an error in returning the finding of personal necessity as they have not rightly appreciated the cross Civil Revision No.6661 of 2008 (O&M) examination. Mr.Sarju Puri has read the cross examination and on an observation made by this Court that the view taken by the two courts below is one of the possible views and this Court cannot do re-appraisal and re- appreciation of the evidence, Mr.Puri has very fairly stated that he be permitted to make an alternative prayer before this Court. He states that petitioner is running a Karyana Shop in the demised premises and is having a huge inventory and he requires sufficient time to sell the goods lying in the shop in order to recover his investment. He has stated in case one year time is granted, he will not press the present revision petition. I find merit in the alternative prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is granted one year time to vacate the premises and to hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlady, subject to the condition that he shall file an undertaking before the concerned Rent Controller to this effect on or before 7th January, 2009. If such undertaking is filed, petitioner will be permitted to remain in occupation of the demised shop till 1st January, 2010. He shall specifically state in the undertaking that he shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession to the landlady on or before 1st January, 2010. The entire arrears of rent shall also be deposited on or before 7th January, 2009. The undertaking shall also contain a condition that the rent for each following month shall be paid or tendered, on or before 7th day of each following month as compensation for use and occupation charges. In case undertaking, as stated above, is not filed, law shall take its own course. With these observations, as prayed, present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 3, 2008 rps 2