IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 113 CR-2930-2025 Date of Decision.:28.05.2025 Jai Karan Pe**oner Vs. Hindu Siksha Sami*, Sanskrity Bhawan, District Kurukshetra Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate with Ms. Anjali Rani, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Vashishth, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Rent peon under Secon 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Evicon) Act, 1973 was filed by landlord – Hindu Siksha Sami (respondent herein) seeking ejectment of the tenant – Jai Karan on the ground of non-payment of the house-tax; the demised shop having become unfit for human habitaon; and bonafide necessity. The peon was filed in January, 2015 and the same was resisted by the tenant. 2. Learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 31.05.2019, though declined the ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent; or the premises having become unfit for human habitaon but allowed the ejectment on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlord. The tenant NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2930-2025 -2- was granted the period of five months so as to vacate the premises as per the order dated 31.05.2019. The appeal filed by the tenant has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by way of the impugned order dated 17.03.2025. 3. Though this revision was filed assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, but today before this Court, Mrs. Kiran Bala, Advocate represenng the tenant-peoner herein, at the outset, stated that she does not press the peon on merits. She prays for grant of reasonable me to the peoner to vacate the demised shop, submi;ng that he is in possession of the same for considerable me and requires at least one year to search for an alternave shop. 4. Counsel for the respondent-landlord has opposed the aforesaid prayer to grant one year to vacate the demised shop, though he has no objecon to give reasonable me to the peoner to vacate the same. 5. The period of one year as sought by the learned counsel for the peoner for vacang the shop by the peoner is absolutely unreasonable. As noced earlier that ejectment peon was filed in January, 2015 and the same was allowed in May, 2019 and five months’ me was granted to the tenant to vacate the shop. Instead of vacang the shop, he filed the appeal, which was dismissed on 17.03.2025. 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances and the fact that peoner is running his shop for the last several years, he is granted me so NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2930-2025 -3- as to vacate the demised shop up to 30.11.2025, subject to the condion that he shall clear all the arrears of rent, if any, and will also connue to pay the future rent by the 7th of every month up to 30.11.2025. It is further made clear that in case peoner fails to comply with the said direcons; or fails to vacate the demised shop on or before 30.11.2025, the peoner- tenant will have to pay user charges/ mesne profits @ ₹50,000/- per month from 1.12.2025 onwards ll the demised shop is actually vacated. Disposed of accordingly. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE May 28, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document