IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 115 CR-3299-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Bahadar Lal and another . . . . Petitioners Vs. Arun Kumar . . . . Respondent **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Vivek Suri, Mr. Dushyant Godara, Ms. Kritika Sharma and Ms. Swati Bansal, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr. Aakash Singla, Ms. Vaishali Singh and Mr. Zoha Ayaz, Advocates, for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. CM-10699-CII-2025 has been filed seeking permission to place on record the reply to CM-23202-CII-2024 along with Annexures A-1 to A-5. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Reply along with Annexures A-1 to A-5 is taken on record. CM-23202-CII-2024 In view of the order being passed in the main revision petition, no separate orders are required to be passed on the present application and the same shall stand disposed of in terms of the final directions issued hereinbelow. CR-3299-2017 (O&M) The present revision petition has been preferred by the tenants under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, assailing the judgment dated 14.03.2017 passed by the learned Appellate VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3299-2017 2026:PHHC: 091690 Authority, Patiala, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-landlord was allowed, the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Nabha dismissing the ejectment petition was set aside, and the petitioners-tenants were directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised shop within one month. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he does not wish to press the revision petition on merits. Instead, a limited prayer has been made that the petitioners may be granted reasonable time, preferably one and a half years, to vacate the demised premises, on the ground that construction of their own commercial premises is presently in progress and they require some time to shift their business. 3. Learned counsel has also opposed CM-23202-CII-2024 filed by the respondent-landlord seeking determination of mesne profits/use and occupation charges during the pendency of the present revision. It is submitted that although the ejectment order was passed by the learned Appellate Authority on 14.03.2017, the said application came to be filed only in December, 2024, after the revision had remained pending for several years. On that basis, it is prayed that no order determining mesne profits be passed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord opposes the request for grant of one and a half years' further time. It is contended that the respondent obtained a decree of ejectment as far back as on 14.03.2017 and even under the said decree, the petitioners were granted only one month's time to vacate the premises. It is submitted that on account of the interim protection operating during the pendency of the present revision, the petitioners have continued in occupation of a commercial property for more than nine years after the decree while paying rent of merely ₹110/- per month, which is grossly disproportionate to the prevailing market rent. 6. At the same time, learned counsel for the respondent fairly states that the respondent's primary concern is to secure vacant possession of the premises and that if the petitioners vacate the demised premises within a VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3299-2017 2026:PHHC: 091690 reasonable time to be fixed by this Court, the respondent shall not press CM- 23202-CII-2024 for determination of mesne profits for the period during which the present revision remained pending. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no adjudication on merits of the revision petition is called for, since the petitioners have consciously chosen not to assail the impugned judgment on merits. Consequently, the judgment dated 14.03.2017 passed by the learned Appellate Authority warrants no interference and is accordingly affirmed. 8. Nevertheless, while exercising equitable jurisdiction, this Court considers it appropriate to grant the petitioners a short and final opportunity to vacate the demised premises. Such indulgence is being granted solely because the petitioners have undertaken to vacate the premises without compelling the respondent to undergo further execution proceedings and because the respondent has fairly agreed to forego his claim for determination of mesne profits during the pendency of the revision, subject to timely vacation of the premises. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The petitioners shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord on or before 31.10.2026, without seeking any further extension. (ii) The petitioners shall clear all arrears of the agreed contractual rent, if any, and shall continue to pay the agreed contractual rent regularly by the 7th day of each succeeding month till 31.10.2026. (iii) In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent- landlord that the respondent shall not press CM-23202-CII-2024 seeking determination of mesne profits/use and occupation charges, if the petitioners vacate the premises within the time granted by this Court, the said application VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3299-2017 2026:PHHC: 091690 is disposed of as not pressed, subject to the petitioners handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises on or before 31.10.2026. (iv) It is, however, made clear that the concession extended by the respondent-landlord as well as the equitable indulgence granted by this Court are conditional. In the event the petitioners fail to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises by 31.10.2026, the concession granted to them shall automatically stand withdrawn. In such an eventuality, the petitioners shall be liable to pay use and occupation charges (mesne profits) at the rate of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month with effect from 01.11.2026 till the date they actually deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the respondent, without prejudice to the respondent's right to execute the ejectment decree and to seek all other remedies available in law. (v) It is further clarified that failure on the part of the petitioners to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions shall render this order inoperative to the extent of the concession regarding time for vacating the premises, and the respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with execution of the ejectment decree forthwith in accordance with law. 10. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 07.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document