RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned orders of eviction passed against him by the authorities below.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground that demised premises are required for personal bona fide need of the respondent/landlord.
(3.) AT the time of motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while ordering the eviction of the petitioner, the Courts below have not considered the question of partial eviction which would have served the purpose of respondentlandlord and had cited observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Yusuf Ali (2010) 12 SCC 740. However, today at the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted before this Court that petitioner be given sufficient time to vacate the demised premises and hand -over the vacant possession to the respondent -landlord.;