IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4938 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.10.2011 Satbir -----Petitioner Vs. Ram Kumar Gupta -----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. Sunil Polist, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order of eviction dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Kaithal and judgment dated 4.8.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, Kaithal, dismissing his appeal. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was ordered on account of personal need and bona fide necessity of the respondent-landlord who wants to demolish the entire existing structure and raise new construction for running a transformer factory and show room for sale of manufactured transformers. C.R. No.4938 of 2011 Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the area, where the demised premises is situated, falls within the residential area and no industrial unit can be allowed to be set up there and thus, the petitioner could not be evicted from the demised premises for the need of the landlord i.e. for raising new construction for running a transformer factory, for which, he cannot be given permission. However, a perusal of the impugned orders would show that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any evidence to the effect that such a commercial activity as projected by the respondent-landlord was prohibited in the said area. Admittedly, the demised premises are of commercial nature and the petitioner was running a shop. Thus, this Court is of the view that no interference is called for with the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner be granted some reasonable time to vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord. The petitioner is ready to make the payment of arrears of rent, if any, within two months from today and shall keep on making the entire future rent in advance by the 10th of every month till the date of eviction and also that he shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month from today that he will hand over the vacant 2 C.R. No.4938 of 2011 possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord before the expiry of the time granted by this Court. On the basis of submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, by his counsel, this petition is dismissed with the observations that the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord on or before 15.2.2012, subject to the condition that he shall make the payment of arrears of rent, if any, within two months from today and shall keep on paying the entire future rent in advance by the 10th of every month and also that he shall 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 before the expiry of the time granted by this Court. In case any violation of the aforesaid conditions, the eviction order shall come into existence immediately. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord, as stipulated above, he shall also be liable to be initiated for contempt proceedings in addition to execution of the impugned orders. October 17, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 3