CR No.4604 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4604 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 8.8.2011 Ashish Gupta ......Petitioner(s) Versus Roshan Lal Sharma and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order whereby on an ejectment petition filed by respondent No.1 under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, his application for leave to contest has been declined and resultantly, his eviction has been ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error in the impugned order, however, he has submitted before this Court that the petitioner is a petty shopkeeper and needs three months' time to vacate the premises in question. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner shall clear the arrears of rent, if any, within two weeks from today and will also make the payment of advance rent upto the stipulated date for vacating the premises in dispute and shall also file an undertaking before the Rent Controller within two weeks from today to hand over the vacant premises to the respondent- landlord on or before 8.11.2011. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is dismissed with the observations that the petitioner is granted three months' CR No.4604 of 2011(O&M) 2 time to vacate the premises in question i.e. on or before 8.11.2011, subject to payment of advance rent and also clearance of arrears of rent within two weeks from today and also file an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises on or before 8.11.2011 to the respondent-landlord. It is made clear that in case no undertaking is filed before the Rent Controller or the arrears of rent/advance rent are not paid as aforesaid, the eviction order shall come into force immediately. It is also clarified that in case the petitioner fails to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord on or before 8.11.2011, in addition to the execution of the impugned order, he shall also be liable for contempt. August 8, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE