In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. *** CR No.1941 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 21.3.2011. Anil Kumar Mendiratta --Petitioner vs. Smt.Anju Bhatia --Respondent/Caveator CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.I.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revision petition be dismissed on merits but some time be granted to vacate the premises which is in his possession since 1996 in order to locate an alternate accommodation. Notice of motion on this issue alone to the respondent. At this stage, Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, who is on caveat appears, accepts notice and submits that he would not mind if some reasonable time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the demised premises. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case that the petitioner is in possession of the demised premises since 1996 and he would find some difficulty in making alternative arrangement, a period of six months is granted to him to vacate the demised premises on or CR No.1941 of 2011 (O&M) -2- before 22.9.2011 subject to his filing an undertaking before the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad, that he would vacate the demised premises on or before 22.9.2011 and also pay the entire arrears of rent, if any due and would pay the rent of the ensuing months up to September,2011. It is, however, made clear that in case of any violation of the undertaking to be given, the petitioner shall make himself liable for contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of the above, this revision petition stands disposed off. 21.03.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge