IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1933 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 25, 2010 Lekh Raj …Petitioner Versus Narain Dass. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.C. Batra, Advocate and Ms. Mamta Malik, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent. S.D. Anand, J. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, very fairly states that he is not in a position to assail the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority directing the ejectment of the petitioner – tenant from the tenanted premises on a finding that the respondent – landlord requires it for his personal bona fide necessity for use thereof by his son who wants to run a business therein. However, the learned counsel requests for the grant of little extra time to enable the petitioner C.R. No.1933 of 2010 – tenant to make alternative arrangement wherein the petitioner could run business and keep earning bread and butter for the sustenance of his family. The petition shall stand dismissed. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority shall stand affirmed. However, the petitioner – tenant is given one year and three months’ time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned, subject to payment of rent regularly. The order would come into force if the petitioner – tenant files an undertaking (to the effect that he shall vacate the tenanted premises within one year and three months from today, subject to payment of rent regularly and that in case of a default, he would render himself liable to punishment on a charge of having violated the orders of the Court and that he shall render himself to eviction forthwith), with the Registry of this Court within 15 days from today. Disposed of accordingly. March 25, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2