Civil Revision No.3882 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:14.07.2011 Raj Kumar ....petitioner Versus Rashpal Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.S.Manhas,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 05.09.2007, whereby his eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity and misuse of the premises in question with a further direction to him to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within two months from the date of passing of the order and the order dated 21.04.2011, whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. At the initial stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the respondent-landlord has agreed to give the premises in dispute to the petitioner for the commercial use and therefore he is estopped from seeking his eviction on the ground of change of use. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not controvert the law settled by the Hon'ble Civil Revision No.3882 of 2011(O & M) 2 Supreme Court of India in the case of Nand Kishore vs. Yashpal 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 829, whereby it has been laid down that even if landlord has let out the residential building for commercial use with mutual consent, he is entitled to evict tenant despite his consent, as landlord cannot permit a tenant to use the premises which is situated in the residential area for commercial use as it would be violative of Section 11 of the Act which is mandatory in nature. Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was unable to satisfy this Court on the merits of this case. On instructions from Mr.Raj Kumar, petitioner, who is present in the court, a prayer has been made to grant some time to him to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute, to the respondent. It has also been submitted that petitioner will make the payment of arrears, if any, within one month from today and will also continue to pay the monthly rent in advance i.e.by 10th of every month. The petitioner has also undertaken before this Court that if the time is granted to him he will hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent on or before 31.01.2012. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is dismissed with the observations the petitioner shall not be dispossessed up to 31.01.2012 ,in case he files an undertaking as aforesaid before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh with a notice to the respondent-landlord within two weeks from today. However, it is made clear that in case no such undertaking is filed or any of the conditions of the undertaking is violated, the time granted by this Court will come to an end, immediately and the respondent-landlord shall be entitled to take the possession of the demised premises in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall be bound by his undertaking given before this Court, today and shall Civil Revision No.3882 of 2011(O & M) 3 hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord on or before 31.01.2012. Revision Petition stands dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 14.07.2011 neenu