CR No.1774 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1774 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.04.2011 Smt. Asha Gupta . . .Petitioner Versus Sudershan Kumar Rai . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.R.S. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.K. Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh by which an application filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent and Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of the left side of Ist Floor of House No.146, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh has been allowed by dismissing the application of the tenant filed under Section 18-A of the Act for leave to defend on the ground of delay. At the time of notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that even if leave to defend is not granted, the landlord is to prove his case by entering into the witness box and in that regard he had relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Kamal Raj Bansal Vs. Rajpaul Singh” 2011 (1) LAR 77. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in case CR No.1493 of 2010 titled as “Anwar Ali Vs. Gian Kaur” decided on 19.11.2010 and has held that the order dated 19.01.2009 in Kamal Raj Bansal (Supra) does not erode the efficacy of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in “Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini” AIR 2006 SC 59. CR No.1774 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - It was thus held that the moment application for leave to defend is dismissed the order of eviction would follow in terms of provision of Section 13 B of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is in possession since 2001 and would take some to find out alternate accommodation, therefore, he may be granted six months time to vacate the demised premises. In this regard learned counsel for the respondent submits that the tenant/petitioner may be granted 3 months time to vacate the demised premises subject to his furnishing undertaking by way of an affidavit and clear all the arrears of rent, if any. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties, petitioner is granted 3 months time to vacate the demised premises i.e. on or before 22.07.2011 subject to his furnishing an undertaking by way of an affidavit to the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and also by clearing all the arrears of rent, if any due. He shall also keep on paying the accrued rent to the landlord of the ensuing months. It is made clear that in case of violation of the undertaking, which is to be given by the tenant, he would be liable for suitable action in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) April 20, 2011 JUDGE vivek