SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) GOKAL Parkash, the tenant, has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the order of his ejectment, passed by both the Courts below, on the ground of personal necessity.
(2.) ON May 7, 2004, while issuing notice of motion, execution of the impugned judgment was stayed by this Court. On 20.7.2004, this revision petition was admitted and the interim order was ordered to continue. Now, during the pendency of this revision petition, both the parties have settled their dispute. Petitioner Gokal Parkash, who is present in Court today, has made the following statement : "I am tenant in the demised premises bearing No. B-1/492, Handiaya Bazar, Barnala at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. On the ejectment application filed by the landlords, I have been ordered to be ejected by both the Courts below on the ground of personal necessity. Now, I have settled the dispute with my landlords. I undertake to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlords by 30.6.2008. I have already paid rent upto 31.3.2004. I will pay the arrears of rent upto 30.4.2006. The future rent from May, 2006 onwards till 30.6.2008 will be paid by me to my landlords regularly by tenth of every month. I further undertake that I will not part with the possession of the demised premises and will not cause any damage to it. In view of the compromise, I do not want to press this revision petition". Vijay Kumar Singla, respondents No. 1, who is also present in Court today, has heard the aforesaid statement of the petitioner-tenant and has made the following statements on his own behalf and also on behalf of his minor son Chirag Singla, respondent No. 2 : "I am the Guardian of Chirag Singla. Myself and my minor son Chirag Singla are landlords of the demised premises to the extent of half share. I have heard the statement of petitioner Gokal Parkash. I agree with his statement. I undertake that I will not force the dispossession of the tenant from the demised premises till 30.6.2008, provided he pays the arrears of rent and further pays the future rent regularly in terms of his statement and hands over the vacant possession of the demised premises to pay us by 30.6.2008". Similarly, after hearing the statement of the petitioner-tenant, Rajinder Kumar Singla, respondent No. 3, who is also present in Court today, has made the following statement on his own behalf and also on behalf of his minor sons Hitesh Singla and Sanjay Singla, respondents No. 4 and 5, respectively : "I am the Guardian of Hitesh Singla and Sanjay Singla. Myself and my minor sons Hitesh Singla and Sanjay Singla are landlords of the demised premises to the extent of half share. I have heard the statement of petitioner Gokal Parkash. I agree with his statement. I undertake that I will not force the dispossession of the tenant from the demised premises till 30.6.2008, provided he pays the arrears of rent and further pays the further rent regularly in terms of his statement and hands over the vacant possession of the demised premises to us by 30.6.2008". All the aforesaid three statements made by the parties have been counter- signed by their respective counsel. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the statement of the petitioner-tenant, this revision petition is dismissed as not pressed.
(3.) HOWEVER , both the parties will be bound by their respective statements i.e. the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlords by 30.6.2008; shall pay the arrears of rent upto 30.4.2006; shall also pay the future rent from May, 2006 onwards till 30.6.2008 regularly by tenth of every month and shall not part with the possession of the demised premises and shall not cause any damage to it. Similarly, respondents- landlords shall not force the dispossession of the tenant from the demised premises till 30.6.2008 and shall issue proper receipt against the rent received. Petition dismissed.;