Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for sometime is unable to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below that the premises are required for the personal necessity of the landlady. It has come in the evidence that the family of the landlady consist of seven sons and three daughters and she is having many grand children. It is not disputed that the family of landlady consist of 49 members. Finding of personal necessity has been thoroughly discussed and rightly arrived at in para 24 of the judgment of learned Rent Controller and which has been affirmed by learned Appellate Authority in paras No.14 and 15 of his judgment, which read as under:- "14. RW.1 Lekh Raj admitted that house No. 882, Parade Mohalla, Kalka comprised of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom and latrine and that this house was constructed about 60-70 years ago. RW.1 Lekh Raj admitted that petitioner Vidya Devi had seven sons and five of them were residing at Kalka and were married. He also admitted that five sons of petitioner Vidya Devi residing at Kalka were having their own children in the age group of 5 to 8 years. RW.1 Lekh Raj admitted that they were constructed their own house. 15. The learned counsel for the appellanttenants contended that one petition titled Sharbati Devi Vs. Natholi Ram was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala and therefore, the present petition filed against the legal heirs of the said Natholi Ram was barred by principle of res-judicata. The plea of res-judicata in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be sustained because personal necessity can change depending upon addition in family by way of marriage, birth etc. Apart from that, this property has been purchased by the present respondents-landlords whereas the Civil Revision No. 4997 of 2007 3 previous petition was filed by the previous owners".
(2.) When confronted that concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below cannot be disturbed on the mere asking and the view formed by two Courts below is one view which is possible. Learned counsel for the petitioners- tenants submits that he may be permitted to advance alternative prayer before this Court. He says that he has instructions not to pursue the present revision petition in case the petitioners are granted nine months' time to make alternative arrangement.
(3.) Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has stated that he has no objection if execution proceedings are hastened by filing an undertaking before learned Rent Controller that after expiry of nine months from 1.12.2008, peaceful vacant possession shall be handed over to the landlady. He further says that the undertaking shall also include condition that the entire arrears of rent shall be paid and rent of each following month shall be paid or tendered in advance before learned Rent Controller.;