Civil Revision No. 4783 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4783 of 2003 Date of Decision: 14.11.2008 Tikka Ram …Petitioner Versus Baldev Sahai (dead) through his legal representatives …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vikram Preet Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Mr. Vikram Preet Arora, Advocate, states that in view of the findings recorded by the Court below, he will not be in a position to dislodge the findings. Therefore, he has prayed that he be permitted to make alternative prayer. He has submitted that in case nine months' time is granted to vacate the demised premises, commencing from 1.12.2008, he shall not pursue the present revision petition and will withdraw the same. Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent in the present petition and Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent in Civil Revision No. 3291 of 2007 have stated that they have no objection to grant of nine months' Civil Revision No. 4783 of 2003 2 time to vacate the demised premises in case an undertaking is furnished by the tenant before learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. They further state that tenant be put to condition to tender and deposit the entire amount of arrears of rent and he should also undertake that rent of each month shall be paid. During the course of arguments, consensus has emerged between the parties taking into consideration the fact that in Civil Revision No. 4783 of 2003, learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, in his judgment dated 25.7.2003 has held that petitioner Baldev Sahai, who is now being represented by his legal representatives, is specified landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 as he had retired from his Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2002. Learned Rent Controller rightly held that the tenanted premises are required by the landlord for his own use and occupation as the need of the petitioner is bonafide because he is having three sons, two of them are married and presently living at Ambala as they intend to come to Chandigarh and his third son is living in the house in question. Mr. Jagga has stated that third son of the petitioner is also married now. Petitioner Tikka Ram, Mechanic, was tenant in two rooms and a kitchen with common latrine, and gallery on the first floor. The finding of learned Rent Controller that landlord was specified landlord and he required the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation, has not been challenged on the ground that nine months' time is required to vacate the premises. Therefore, as prayed present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Civil Revision No. 4783 of 2003 3 The petitioner-tenant is granted nine months' time to vacate the demised premises subject to his filing an undertaking before learned Rent Controller on or before 1.12.2008 that he shall vacate the demised premises within nine months commencing from 1.12.2008. The undertaking shall also include a condition that entire arrears of rent shall be paid and the rent which is due for each month shall be paid on or before 7th of following month along with the electricity charges. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 14, 2008 “DK”