IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2399 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.11.2009 Gajjan Singh Sandhu .....Petitioner versus Rakesh Kumar Verma .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Dharam Chand Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.2399 of 2009 and 2623 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Revision No.2399 of 2009. The petitioner in both the cases are tenants in a residential house No.3463, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. The respondent-landlord filed eviction petitions against the petitioner-tenants, inter-alia, on the ground that he requires the demised premises for his own personal use and occupation. The Rent Controller, C.R. No.2399 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Chandigarh, accepted the plea of the respondent-landlord and passed the eviction order dated 18.7.2007. The petitioner-tenants went in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. When the appeal was taken up for arguments as per its turn on 15.10.2008, both the parties made the following statements and in terms thereof, the Appellate Authority also passed an order of the even date, which is also reproduced below:- “Statement of Gajjan Singh son of Sh.Bakhtawar Singh, aged 70 years, r/o H.No.3463, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. It is stated that I will hand over the possession of disputed house before next date. Two months time may be granted to me. RO&AC Sd/- 15.10.2008” “Statement of Rakesh Kumar son of Hari Om Verma, r/o H.No.871-A, Sector-4, Panchkula. It is stated that I have heard the above statement. I have no objection if two months time is granted to Gajjan Singh as per his statement/request. RO&AC Sd/- 15.10.2008” “Present: As above. Today, the case was fixed for arguments, however, both the parties have made a statement as to the compromise of the matter and keeping in view the statement of parties, there is every possibility of compromise. As such, case is adjourned to 20.12.2008 before Mega Lok Adalat for their settlement. Sd/- AA/15.10.2008” It would be seen that for all intents and purposes, the appeal filed by C.R. No.2399 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the petitioner-tenant was dismissed as withdrawn though he was granted two months period to vacate the demised premises. It is only for the formal disposal of the appeal before the Lok Adalat that the Appellate Authority adjourned the matter to 20.12.2008. Thereafter, the matter was fixed before the Lok Adalat on 20.12.2008 but the appellant was not present. The appeal was adjourned to 6.1.2009 when one of the impugned orders, para 5 whereof reads as follows, was passed: “5. Heard. Since the appellant has already suffered a statement that he will vacate the demised premises within two months, but he failed to do so, it automatically shows that he is not interested to continue with his appeal and the only intention is to take time. As such, keeping in view the statement suffered by the appellant, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, however, the appellant is granted time up to 31.3.2009, to vacate the demised premises, subject to the condition that he will deposit the arrears of mesne profit as ordered by this Court on 8.9.2007, failing which, the respondent- landlord will have a right to get the order of ejectment implemented as per law. In these facts and circumstances, both the parties are left to bear their own costs. Memo of costs be prepared. A copy of this order alongwith lower court record be sent back and appeal file be consigned to the record room.” It may be noticed that even on 6.1.2009, the petitioner sought and was granted further time to vacate the demised premises by 31.3.2009. In stead of honouring his own statement, the petitioner moved C.R. No.2399 of 2009 (O&M) 4 an application that the respondent-landlord has refused to honour the alleged compromise and, therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the earlier statement suffered by him on 15.10.2008 and the appeal may be revived and heard on merits. The said application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 11.4.2009, giving rise to these connected revision petitions. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. In my considered view, the stand taken by the petitioner- tenant lacks bonafide. In a case where the respondent-landlord has already proved his bonafide personal necessity before the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant went in appeal and volunteered to vacate the demised premises within a specified period. On the petitioner's request, time was further extended to vacate the premises. The subsequent application moved by the petitioner-tenants is an after-thought, concocted version just to put pressure on the respondent-landlord for extraneous consideration. No case to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. 23-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE