Civil Revision No.6467 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No.6467 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.10.2010 Sohan Lal …Petitioner Versus Amolak Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Amolak Singh, respondent/landlord, who retired as a Naib Tehsildar, had two shops in the demised premises, out of which one was let out to Master Studio and the other to petitioner-Sohan Lal. The petitioner herein, in the demised shop, is running a STD/PCO Booth. The respondent/landlord had instituted the eviction petition against both these tenants on the ground that since his son Manjit Singh was running a shop in the rented premises and had to vacate the same in the year 2004, both the shops were required by the landlord for running the electronic goods and repair shop therein. It was specifically stated in the eviction petition that these two shops are to be merged into one big shop. Both the Courts below while rejecting the ground of the landlord that the tenants were in arrears of rent, upheld the ground, as pleaded by the landlord, that the demised shops were required for personal use and occupation of his son for running the electronic goods and repair Civil Revision No.6467 of 2010 2 shop therein and also by the landlord for supplementing his income. Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner/tenant, has made the following submissions and the same are also dealt with hereunder:- i) Firstly, that the statutory requirement, as prescribed under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1949”). has not been complied with by the landlord by not stating specifically, in the eviction petition, that no property is owned by him within the municipal limits of Jalandhar and he has not vacated any such premises. To examine this, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to read the eviction petition, so filed by the respondent/landlord. In para 3(b) whereof, the landlord gave minute details regarding eviction of the shop by his son Manjit Singh which was on rent with him and it was further stated that there was no other shop in his possession. Therefore, for running the business, both the demised shops, let out to the petitioner and Master Studio, are required by the landlord for personal use and occupation. In para No.4 of the eviction petition, it was specifically stated that the landlord has no other property within the municipal limits of Jalandhar. Though the specific words, as prescribed in the Act 1949, have not been used, but Civil Revision No.6467 of 2010 3 for all intent and purposes, the same have been explained in para Nos. 3 and 4 of the eviction petition. (ii) Secondly, it has been urged that the premises are not required for personal necessity of the son of landlord namely Manjit Singh as he is about 50 years of age and after he was evicted from the shop, which was on rent with him, he has not yet started any other business. This contention can also not be accepted as the case, so pleaded, was that both the shops are required by the landlord for settling his son Manjit Singh, who intended to run the business of electronic goods and repair. (iii) Lastly, it has been contended that in his cross- examination, the landlord admitted that another shop has been vacated. This Court has perused the site plans (Annexure A3 and A4) and is unable to comprehend as to where the third shop is situated. The stray line of the cross-examination of the landlord cannot be taken into consideration to ignore all the answers given by him. The landlord has specifically stated that the demised property is situated on the plot measuring six marlas. It contained only two shops and in the back, there are three rooms, which are in his occupation for his residence. Thus, the stray line cannot be applied to Civil Revision No.6467 of 2010 4 the facts of the case . At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since he has failed to dislodge the concurrent finding, recorded by both the Courts below, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present revision petition and he be similarly dealt with as his co-tenant has been granted sufficient time to vacate the demised premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order (Annexure A1), passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein, in case of adjoining shop, the tenant was given time for one and a half year to vacate premises. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed as not pressed. However, in terms of the order dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure A1), passed in Civil Revision No. 1451 of 2010 titled as “Reena and Others v. Amolak Singh and Another”, the petitioner herein is also granted a period of one and a half year to vacate the demised premises, subject to his furnishing an undertaking on or before 1.11.2011 to the Court of Rent Controller, Jalandhar, that he will hand over actual physical vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent/landlord. The undertaking will also state that the rent due for following months shall be paid on or before 7th of each month. The entire arrears of rent, if any, shall be deposited in the Court of Rent Controller, Jalandhar, by 1.11.2011. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 5, 2010 “DK”