Civil Revision No.5744 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5744 of 2000 Date of Decision:-November 5,2009 Pyare Lal ...Petitioner Versus Vinay Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ashish Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for the respondent. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. The brief facts, relevant for disposal of present revision petition, are that originally, the ejectment petition filed by Vinay Kumar son of J.R.Sharma-respondent-landlord (hereinafter to be referred as “the landlord”) against Pyare Lal son of Dalip Chand- petitioner-tenant (hereinafter to be referred as “the tenant”) was accepted by the Rent Controller on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity of the landlord vide impugned order dated 12.10.1998. The appeal filed by the tenant was also dismissed vide order dated 1.11.2000 by the Appellate Authority. Having lost the legal battle, the tenant has filed the present revision petition challenging the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. At the very outset, accepting the correctness of the impugned orders and instead of arguing the revision petition, learned counsel for the tenant has filed an undertaking by way of affidavit (which is taken on the record of this case), the relevant para Nos.2 Civil Revision No.5744 of 2000 2 and 3 of which are as under:- “2. That the deponent undertakes that he shall vacate the premises in question i.e. Booth No.19, Sector 23- D, Chandigarh, which is in his possession as a tenant, by November 15,2010 and shall hand over the vacant possession to respondent-landlord, Shri Vinay Kumar. 3. That the deponent does not wish to pursue the present revision petition on merits and, as such, the same may be disposed off in light of the undertaking given by the deponent in para no.1 above.” The copy of the affidavit has been given to learned counsel for the landlord, who on instructions of his client, has fairly agreed that the landlord has no objection if the tenant vacates and hands over the vacant possession of the demised premises to him by 15th November, 2010 without any further proceedings. In this view of the matter and undertaking/affidavit, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the impugned orders are maintained. However, the tenant is permitted to retain possession of the demised premises till 15.11.2010 with the direction that he (tenant) shall hand over its vacant possession to the landlord immediately thereafter, failing which, he (landlord) would also be entitled to Rs.25,000/- in addition to his legal remedies to recover the possession. The tenant is also directed to pay the monthly rent in advance before 7th day of every month to the landlord by way of draft. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) November 5,2009 Judge AS