The High Court further found that the respondent had fully satisfied the companyditions as companytained in section 13 A of the Act and he was entitled to recover the possession of the premises in dispute from the petitioner.
The said petition was, however, dismissed by the High Court.
In the meantime, stay of eviction to companytinue.
In response to the said numberice, the respondent filed a companynter affidavit on April 18, 1992 wherein an objection has been raised that in view of the undertaking given by him the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
On April 9, 1992, an order was passed in the following terms Issue numberice returnable within two weeks.
In the meantime, numberdispossession to be effected.
On the said petition the following order was passed on March 26, 1992 To companye up in numbermal companyrse.
In order to avail the protection from eviction from the premises for a period of one month he filed the requisite undertaking in the companyrt of the Rent Controller within the period of 15 days prescribed under the directions of the High Court.
The petitioner chose the first option.
On March 21, 1992, the petitioner filed the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution in this Court.
By furnishing the said undertaking the petitioner elected to avail the protection from eviction from the premises and he enjoyed the said protection till the passing of the order by this Court on March 26, 1992, staying dispossession of the petitioner.
The respondent has already sent draft for the rent for the month of March 1992 to the petitioner and he is number in arrears of rent.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an undertaking dated March 20, 1992 before the Rent Controller wherein the petitioner after referring to the direction companytained in the order of the High Court dated March 6, 1992 gave the following undertaking That the respondent hereby gives undertaking that he will vacate the premises and shall handover the vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of one month from 6.3.92 as per the order of Honble High Court, subject to his rights for filing SLP in the Honble Supreme Court against the order of eviction.
The petitioner made an effort to obtain extension of time for vacating the premises without furnishing the undertaking and he filed a petition for the purpose before the High Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1992 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
The appellant gave an undertaking in accordance with the said terms wherein he undertook that he would vacate and give vacant possession of the suit premises by December 31, 1985, i.e., to say after one year if by that time numberstay order from the Supreme Court is received as I intend to file an appeal in the Supreme Court.
The High Court, while deciding the second appeal in an eviction matter gave the appellant tenant one years time subject to his giving an undertaking within a period of three weeks stating that vacant possession would be handed over within the aforesaid time.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition No.
Having failed in his attempt to obtain extension of time for vacating the premises without furnishing an undertaking the petitioner had two options open to him, i to avail the protection from eviction from the premises for 3a period of one month by tiling an undertaking as directed, or ii number to avail the said protection and run the risk of immediate eviction.
The proceedings relate to a residential house in Chandigarh which was let out to the petitioner by the respondent.
2 of 1985.
The said petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller by order dated August 5, 1991 on the view that the respondent did number fall within the ambit of the definition of specified landlord since he had failed to show that he was holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in companynection with the affairs of the Union or of the State.
His services were transferred to the University by the Government of Haryana with effect from November 1, 1975, and while he was employed on the post of Comptroller in the University he retired from service with effect from February 28, 1991.
The respondent was initially employed as Accounts Officer with the Finance Department of the Government of Haryana.
The statement in the undertaking that it was subject to the rights of the petitioner to file special leave petition in this Court against the order of eviction, does number, in our view, have any effect on the legal companysequences flowing as a result of the filing of the undertaking by the petitioner.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Ms. Kirti Misra for the Appellant.
The said petition was rejected by the High Court by order dated March 18, 1992.
Having elected to avail the protection from eviction under the order dated March 6, 1992 passed by the High Court, by filing the requisite undertaking, the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the said order.
The High Court further directed as under However, the respondent is allowed one months time to vacate the premises provided he pays the entire arrears of rent within 15 days from today, and also files an undertaking with the Court of the Rent Controller to the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of aforesaid period.
On March 16, 1992, the petitioner moved a petition in the high Court under section 151 CPC seeking three months, time to vacate the house and for waiving the requirement of filing of an undertaking.
Allowing the revision, the High Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller and accepted the petition filed by the respondent under section 13 A of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of proceedings for eviction initiated by the respondent landlord against the petitioner tenant under section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act , as amended by Act No.
In 1969, he went on deputation with the Haryana Agricultural University hereinafter referred to as the University .
4325 of 1992.
2830 of 1991.
V. Sehgal, S.M. Sarin, P.N. Puri, Ranbir Singh Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the Respondent.
Claiming to be a specified landlord within the meaning of section 2 hh of the Act, the respondent moved a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner under section 13A of the Act before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh.
The respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court under section 18 A 8 of the Act which was allowed by the High Court by judgment dated March 6, 1992.
