IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3879 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th July, 2009. Kamlesh Kumari Petitioner through Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate Versus Jaswant Kaur & Anr. Respondents through Mr. Gulzar Mohd, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby the petitioner – tenant's application to grant leave to contest in an eviction petition instituted under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has been dismissed. The eviction petition has been filed by the respondents, who are husband and wife, inter-alia, alleging that the residential house in dispute is owned by respondent No. 1 and their two sons and daughter by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 19.5.1999. It is averred that the respondents and their children are Non-Resident- Indians settled in UK. The present eviction petition has been filed with the plea that respondent No. 1 and her co-owners are owning the subject premises from last more than five years and they need the same for their personal use and occupation. The respondents have claimed themselves to be the “specified landlords” under the Act and accordingly sought the petitioner's eviction summarily as per the procedure laid down under Section 18-A of the Act. The petitioner, while contesting the claim of the respondents, moved an application to grant her leave to contest which has been declined by the Rent Controller vide the impugned order and consequently an eviction order has been passed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. The respondent – landlords are also present on caveat. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he does not want to press this revision provided that the petitioner is granted some reasonable period to vacate the premises. He points out that the tenant is a widow and does not have sufficient means of livelihood. Learned counsel for the respondent – landlords, on instructions, agrees to the petitioner's proposal and is willing to grant a period of one year to the petitioner – tenant to vacate the premises. In views of the afore-stated stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, the impugned eviction order is modified and the revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner – tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar within one week from the date a certified copy of this order is received, undertaking to vacate the subject premises and hand-over its peaceful vacant possession to the respondent – landlords on or before 31st July, 2010. The petitioner shall also given an undertaking that she shall continue to pay the monthly rent before 10th day of each English calendar month till she vacates the premises. The arrears of rent from November, 2008 onwards shall be paid by her within a period of one month. If the undertaking as agreed to above is not filed, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. July 15, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE