IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 132 CR-2736-2025 Date of Decision.:07.05.2025 M/s Raman Medical Store …..Pe//oner Vs. Smt. Narinder Sharma and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This is tenant’s revision against the concurrent findings of the courts below, whereby his ejectment has been ordered. 2. Peon under Secon 13 of the Rent Restricon Act as filed by the landlord (respondents herein) for ejectment of tenant from the demised premises was accepted by learned Rent Controller on 13.12.2017 by holding that landlords have successfully proved the legal necessity for seeking the ejectment. The appeal as filed by the tenant i.e., peoner herein was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 21.02.2025. 3. Assailing the findings, it is contended by learned counsel that first floor and second floor of the premises are lying vacant and that the landlord could not prove that those premises were not suitable to start the business of academic classes as ejectment was by peoner No.1 on this ground only so as to project her bonafide need. 4. This Court does not find merit in the aforesaid contenon. It is NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.08 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2736-2025 -2- for the landlord to decide as to which of the premises are suitable so as to fulfill his/her requirements. Tenant is nobody to dictate his terms in this regard. Both the Courts below have returned the concurrent findings of facts by holding the requirement of the landlords to be bonafide for seeking the ejectment of the tenant i.e., peoner herein and this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the concurrent findings in this regard. 5. Faced with the aforesaid situaon, learned counsel for the peoner- tenant prays this Court to grant a period of 1½ year so as to vacate the premises. 6. At this stage, Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and submits that the period sought by the peoner for vacang the premises is quite unreasonable and that respondent has no objecon to grant a period of one month to the peoner to vacate the premises. 7. Having considered submissions of both the sides, this Court disposes of the present peon with the direcon to the peoner- tenant to vacate the demised premises on or before 30.09.2025. It is made clear that the peoner- tenant will connue to pay the agreed rent regularly ll vacaon of the premises on or before 30.09.2025; and in case it fails to do so and the respondents- landlords are compelled to file the execuon, then the peoner will have to pay mesne profit at the rate of 50 mes the present rent being paid by him, with effect from 01.10.2025 onwards, ll the actual vacaon of the premises. Disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 07, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.08 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document