In a landlord-tenant eviction dispute, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the revision petition as not pressed. Upon terms, the petitioner-tenant was granted nine months to vacate the premises and pay rent in advance.
Petitioner granted nine months to vacate premises and pay rent in advance subject to undertaking.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6520 of 2010
Date of decision: 25th October, 2010
Sham Lal
… Petitioner
Versus
Mathra Dass
… Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate for Mr. Lakhwinder S. Sidhu, Advocate for the caveator/respondent.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Landlord-Mathra Dass was 72 years old, when he instituted an eviction petition. One of the grounds pleaded was that the demised residential premises at Barnala was required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation on the ground that after retirement the stay of the landlord with his son at Longowal had resulted into strained relations. Both the Courts below upheld this contention. In the social context, this Court can also understand the averment made by the landlord that his stay with his son and daughter-in-law was causing bickering and the old man was not having peaceful stay while residing with his son. Therefore, this Court is hesitant to come to the rescue of the petitioner and disturb the well reasoned findings recorded by both the Courts below.
At this stage, Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, on instructions from Tejinder Singla son of Sham Lal
2
Civil Revision No.6520 of 2010
tenant, has stated that in case sufficient time is granted to make alternative arrangement, he will not press the present revision petition.
Counsel for the caveator-respondent has stated that he is ready and willing to give reasonable time to the tenant to shift to an alternative accommodation.
During the course of arguments, counsel for the parties have agreed that in case nine months’ time is granted to the petitioner-tenant to hand over the actual physical peaceful vacant possession of the premises, it will be just and appropriate.
In view of the statements made by counsel for the parties, present revision petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, the petitioner-tenant is granted nine months’ time to hand over the actual physical peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the respondentlandlord, subject to his filing an undertaking to this effect in the Court of Rent Controller, Barnala. The undertaking shall further state that the petitioner shall pay the rent of following months in advance on or before the 7th day of each month and that the entire arrears of rent shall be paid. The undertaking be filed on or before 15th November, 2010.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE
October 25, 2010 rps
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the landlord's personal use defence involving strained family relations warrants eviction.
Sham Lal
Mathra Dass
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
