IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 960 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 29th July, 2009. Inderjit Singh & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate Versus Satvinder Singh & Anr. Respondents through Mr. I.P.S.Bains, 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 20.12.2008 [Annexure P-7] of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, which in fact is an agreed order passed on the basis of the statement made by the parties. The petitioners and the respondents are stated to be related to each other. Petitioner No. 1 was inducted as a tenant on the first floor of House No. 417, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh, which is co-owned by the respondents. Petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have failed to pay the rent, therefore, an eviction petition was filed with one of the grounds taken, as noticed above. On receipt of notice, petitioner No. 1 appeared before the Rent Controller and made a statement on oath, on 12.12.2008 [Annexure P-6] that he was unable to pay the arrears of rent and had no objection if an ejectment order is passed against him, provided that he was granted five months time to vacate the premises, i.e., up to 30.5.2009. The said statement was accepted by the respondents and consequently, an agreed order dated 20.12.2008, which is subject matter of challenge in this revision petition, was passed. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are wife, son and daughter respectively of petitioner No.1. All of them have filed this petition challenging the consent order and explaining the mitigating circumstances which are stated to have compelled petitioner No. 1 to concede the claim of the respondents before the Rent Controller. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have also put in appearance. During the course of hearing and having realized the fact that it will be in the interest of both the parties not to wind up further litigation, the matter has been compromised in the following terms:- [i] petitioners No. 2 and 3, who are present in Court have filed their affidavits which are taken on record, giving an undertaking to vacate the demised premises and hand- over vacant possession thereof to the respondents on or before 1.8.2010; [ii] their counsel state at the Bar that petitioners No. 2 and 3 have filed their affidavits after having similar instructions from petitioners No. 1 and 4 also. All the petitioners have, thus, undertaken to vacate the premises on or before 1.8.2010; [iii] the respondents have agreed not to claim any arrears of rent for the past period provided that the petitioners honour their undertaking and vacate the premises by 1.8.2010; [iv] the petitioners further undertake to pay monthly rent/user charges @ Rs.1250/- per month w.e.f. 1.7.2009 till 31.7.2010. While the rent for the month of July, 2009, shall be paid before 31.07.2009, the future rent shall be paid by them on or before 10th day of each calendar month. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioners fail to honour the undertaking given before this Court and/or do not pay the monthly rent as agreed above, in that event, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the eviction order shall become final and operative. Disposed of. Dasti. July 29, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE