IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1330 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.08.2009 Amarjit Singh .....Petitioner versus Surender Pal Singh (dead) through Darshan Kaur and another .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Gandhi, 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) The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved at the order dated 24.8.2006 whereby the Rent Controller, Rohtak has ordered his eviction from the demised premises comprising a shop, as well as against the judgment dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak, upholding the aforestated eviction order. One of the plea taken by the petitioner-tenant is that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the respondents-landlord entered into an `agreement to sell' the demised premises to the petitioner, but later on, refused to execute the sale deed, as a result whereof the petitioner had C.R. No.1330 of 2008 (O&M) 2 to file a suit for specific performance. The said suit was decreed by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.3.2003. The respondents- landlord went in appeal which was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge vide a consent order dated 19.3.2005, in terms whereof, the petitioner-tenant was required to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,95,000/- to the landlord-respondent on or before 31.3.2005. The petitioner-tenant, however, filed an execution application in which the landlord took an objection that it is the petitioner who has failed to pay the balance sale consideration by the cut off date i.e. 31.3.2005. The objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 3.12.2007, which was upheld by this Court in Civil Revision No.6728 of 2007, dismissed vide order dated 24.7.2009. In this view of the matter when the petitioner-tenant has already improved his status to that of a `decree-holder' in a suit for specific performance and pursuant to which the Executing Court is likely to execute the sale deed in his favour, I am of the considered view that the eviction order under challenge cannot sustained. The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed; the impugned orders dated 24.8.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Rohtak and dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak, are set-aside and the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord is dismissed. However, there shall be a rider that in case the respondent- landlord succeeds in getting the `consent decree' dated 19.3.2005 set-aside from any competent Court, or if at any stage, the Executing Court refuses C.R. No.1330 of 2008 (O&M) 3 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, in that eventuality, the respondent-landowner shall be entitled to get this revision petition revived. 26-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE