Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Kumar vs Jai Bharat Mandal Ramlila And ... on 11 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004381
119. 2024:PHHC:004381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-4703-2023
Date of decision: 11.01.2024
Surender Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
Jai Bharat Mandal Ramlila and Dharamshala Society ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the respondent.
----
GURBIR SINGH, J.
Power of Attorney filed on behalf of petitioner in Court
today, with No Objection from the earlier counsel, is taken on record.
1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment dated
11.04.2023 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Hisar whereby the
appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 17.10.2017
passed by the learned Rent Controller has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent-landlord i.e.
Jai Bharat Mandal Ramlila and Dharamshala Society (Registered),
Hansi, (hereinafter called, "landlord") filed an eviction petition against
the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter called, "tenant") seeking his eviction
from Shop No.25, having Municipal House Tax Unit No.2 situated near
Umra Gate, Hansi (hereinafter called, "demised shop"), on two grounds,
one, non-payment of rent and secondly, for bona fide necessity. Since the
tenant had already paid the arrears of rent before the Rent Controller to
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004381
the landlord, therefore, that ground became infructuous. However, as
regard bona fide necessity, it was pleaded by the landlord that he requires
the demised shop for raising construction of stairs from front side for
better utilization of second floor of the building i.e. Dharamshala.
2.1 In order to prove the case, the landlord examined himself as
AW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.AW1/A reiterating
the averments of petition and also tendered documentary evidence i.e.
copies of proceeding books of petitioner-society, site plan and copy of
rent agreement. On the other side, tenant examined himself as RW1 and
tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.RW1/A and also examined
Photographer-Chander Chopra as RW2, who proved photographs of the
building as Exs.R1 to R3.
2.2 After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Rent
Controller, vide judgment dated 17.10.2017, allowed the eviction petition
on the ground of bona fide necessity and the tenant was directed to
vacate the demised shop within three months from the date of said order.
2.3 Against the aforesaid judgment dated 17.10.2017, tenant
preferred appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, but vide
judgment dated 11.04.2023, his appeal was dismissed.
2.4 Aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below,
the petitioner-tenant has approached this Court by way of present
revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, after arguing for
some time when faced with the situation that the tenant cannot guide the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004381
landlord how to use the property and there are concurrent findings
against the petitioner-tenant, he submits that the petitioner is ready to
vacate the premises and at least 9 months time be given to him for
vacating the same and for making alternative arrangement, and seeks to
withdraw the present revision petition.
4. At this stage, Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, has caused
appearance on behalf of respondent and filed his vakalatnama in Court
today, which is taken on record. He submits that respondent has no
objection if 6 months time, instead of 9 months, is given to the
petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises but subject to his furnishing an
undertaking before the concerned court that he would vacate the
premises maximum within a period of six months.
5. In view of above, six months time is given to the petitioner-
tenant to vacate the demised premises subject to his furnishing an
affidavit to that effect within a month before the concerned Rent
Controller that he shall vacate the premises maximum within a period of
six months and shall not seek any extension. He shall be bound by the
undertaking given. The six months time shall be reckoned from today.
6. Present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(GURBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
January 11, 2024
renu/sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004381
3 of 3
