Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajneesh Kumar S/O Kimat Rai vs Sandeep Kumar Sadana S/O D. N. Sadana on 4 March, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No. 1484 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 1484 of 2013
Date of decision March 4, 2013
Rajneesh Kumar s/o Kimat Rai
....... Petitioner
Vs.
Sandeep Kumar Sadana s/o D. N. Sadana
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharama-I , Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The tenant is in revision against the order of ejectment on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for bona fide occupation and that the tenant is guilty of change of user of the property. Evidently the landlord had established his need and the two Courts have found that the landlord had proved his bona fide need. The counsel has still an objection that the change of user was sought to be proved with reference to unregistered lease deed which has spelt out the nature of change. According to him, the recitals in the unregistered deed could not have been relied on. Even if this plea for change of user cannot be sustained, if the landlord had secured an ejectment on his bona fides and there is no tenable ground to assail the said finding, the order of eviction already passed ought to be required to be sustained. Counsel argues that the tenant CR No. 1484 of 2013 2 has been running his business in the demised premises and the Court has ordered ejectment even without providing for any time for ejectment. The tenant will have a period of six months for vacating the premises and he shall file an undertaking before this and file the same Court at the Registry that he will vacate the premises at or before six months and will continue to pay during the extended period provided through this order. The undertaking shall be given within one week from today but failure to comply with any direction will result in the period granted to be terminated forthwith and allow for the landlord to secure ejectment in execution forthwith.
2. The Civil revision is dismissed with above observation.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 4, 2013 archana