Harbans Kaur vs D.K. Garg and Another

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—After arguing for some time, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not press this revision petition on merits. However, he prays for time to vacate the demised premises which is in her possession since 2001, in order to find out an alternate accommodation.

Notice of motion to the Respondents.

At this stage, Mr. S.P. Garg, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. He submits that some reasonable time may be granted to the Petitioner to vacate the demised premises.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the Petitioner is in possession of the demised premises for the last 10 years and would find some difficulty in arranging alternative accommodation, a period of six months is granted to vacate the demised premises on or before 22.9.2011 subject to her filing an undertaking before the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, that she would vacate the demised premises on or before 22.9.2011 and also pay the entire arrears of rent, if any due and also of the ensuing months, up to September, 2011. It is, however, made clear that in case of any violation of the undertaking given, the Petitioner shall make herself liable for contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.