IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (319)

CR-265-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: - 10.02.2025 Tarsem Lal ....Petitioner Versus Satish Kumar .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Kanishk Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Armaan Saggar, Advocate, and Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for the respondent.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 26.11.2018 vide which the 1^st Appellate Court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord and had directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in question within a period of two months.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner during the course of arguments, has submitted that the petitioner would withdraw the present revision petition but has sought time to vacate the premises and to shift to another premises. It has been stated that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises since 1982.

3. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present revision petition with the following observations/directions:-

(i) The petitioner would be permitted to occupy the premises till

31.07.2025, subject to the conditions mentioned hereinafter and would vacate the premises and hand over the keys of the premises to the respondent on or before 31.07.2025.

(ii) The petitioner would pay an amount of Rs.600/- per month from the month of February, 2025 up to the period the petitioner stays in occupation, on or before 20^th of every month.

(iii) The petitioner would pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, within a period of two months from today.

(iv) The petitioner would file an undertaking on the said three aspects before the Executing Court within a period of three weeks from today with an advance copy to counsel for the landlord in the Executing Court.

4. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not submit the said undertaking or does not comply with any of the abovesaid conditions then it would be open to the landlord to seek immediate possession of the premises in question from the petitioner by applying for police help in addition to taking recourse to other proceedings including the Contempt of Courts Act.

5. In view of what has been observed above, the present revision petition is disposed of.

6. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of in view of the above. ( VIKAS BAHL )

February 10, 2025 JUDGE naresh.k