CR No.1736 of 2008 [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1736 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10 - 11 - 2008 Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner v. Sham Lal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) The Rent Controller in para 9 of the judgment returned the following findings:- “9. At the very outset, the petitioner has sought the ejectment on the ground of personal necessity stating that the premises is required by him, his brother alongwith their families and mother, as both of them were previously residing in government accommodation and now they have retired. They have deep attachment with the said premises as they had spent prime years of their youth there. Their mother also wants to spend her last days there with her children. This has been CR No.1736 of 2008 [2] opposed by the respondent by stating that the need of the petitioner is not genuine as the petitioner and his brother are the owners of other residential accommodation. Reliance is placed upon 2005(1) PLR 716, 2007(3) PLR, 179 and 1993(2) RCR 587 (supra). It is inevitable that the petitioner and his family members are emotionally attached to the premises in question being their native place and now want to settle there. Also, the landlord is the best Judge to decide his bonafide requirement and the same cannot be determined by the tenant. The respondent has also stressed upon the fact that the petitioner demolished the door and window of the house in question and installed a shutter and converted a room into a shop. This claim is beyond the purview of the court as the said portion had never been let out to the respondent and cannot be considered. On the basis of above discussion, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.” To assail these findings, Mr.Jindal has stated that the landlord has alternative accommodation at Muradabad, Karnal and Panipat. He state that pleading of the landlord that he alongwith his brother and other family members intend to live in the house where they were brought up and spent their childhood and is required for emotional need is only a ploy to get the premises vacated. On observations made by this Court that revisional Court cannot substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the Rent Controller in case the opinion is one which can be formulated from the evidence led by the parties, Mr.Jindal has fairly stated that he be allowed to modulate and CR No.1736 of 2008 [3] raise alternative plea that in case he is granted one year time to arrange for alternative accommodation, he will not press the present petition. Mr.C.B.Goel appearing for the landlord-respondent state that he has no objection in case revision petition is withdrawn and the tenant- petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the Rent Controller that peaceful vacant possession shall be handed over to the landlord-respondent on or before 31.12.2009 and tenant be asked to deposit entire arrears of rent and he may also undertake to pay rent on or before 7th of each falling month. In view of the consensus formulated between the parties, tenant-petitioner is granted one year time to vacate the demised premises. He shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he shall hand over vacant possession of the demised premises on or before 31.12.2009. The undertaking shall include the clause that entire arrears of rent has been paid and the rent shall be paid by 7th of each falling month. The undertaking shall be filed before the Rent Controller on or before 1.12.2008. As prayed by Mr.Jindal, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Needless to say that in case the consensus formulated in this order is not adhered to by the parties, then the law will take its own course. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 10, 2008. JUDGE RC