CIVIL REVISION NO.1471 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 07, 2008 Dharampal .....Petitioner VERSUS Nand Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. K. B. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The present revision is directed against the order whereby the petitioner-tenant has been evicted from the shop situated in the Municipal Limit of Gohana. Respondent-landlord had filed a petition against the petitioner for his eviction from the demised shop on the ground of arrears of rent and the tenant ceasing to occupy the building continuously for a period of more than four months, besides pleading the ground of nuisance. The eviction petition, however, was dismissed, against which the landlord filed an appeal. The appeal has been accepted and the tenant-petitioner was CIVIL REVISION NO.1471 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop within a period of one month. The said order is impugned through the present revision petition. Earlier, the Appellate Authority viewed that the Rent Controller omitted to frame the relevant issue in regard to the tenant having ceased to occupy the demised premises and the case was remanded back to the Rent Controller, who, however, again decided against the landlord. The Appellate Authority has noticed in detail the evidence that was led by the parties to show that the shop had remained closed and, thus, the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of four months. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding returned by the Appellate Court suffers from perversity and as such, would require interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-landlord, would contest this and submit that the Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the evidence led by respective parties and have come to a just conclusion that the landlord was able to establish his plea that the tenant had ceased to occupy demised shop. The counsel, thus, pleads that no case for re-appreciation of the evidence is made out which is even not the scope of revisional jurisdiction. The respondent-landlord has examined number of witnesses in support of his plea. Davinder Singh (PW8), deposed that he used to pass in front of the demised shop and found it lying closed since June 1998. Similar was the deposition of Ashok Kumar (PW9). Kartar Singh (PW2) is a Postman who gave evidence that he CIVIL REVISION NO.1471 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: had visited the shop repeatedly and none was found available. Puran Singh (PW4) was an official working at the complaint centre of Electricity Office. He also came forward to depose that the shop was lying closed. The evidence was also given by Manohar Lal (PW5) on similar lines. In addition to the oral account given by various witnesses, the respondent-landlord has also produced Subhash, PW, who was the official of the Electricity Board to show that there was hardly any consumption of electricity. He gave evidence in regard to the monthwise units consumed, which was on the basis of average reading. In this background, the submission as made that Court was mainly influenced by the evidence given by Subhash, PW, and has based its finding on the basis of electricity consumption alone is not substantiated. This is not the only evidence which has been taken into consideration while allowing the appeal. The Court has clearly found, as can be seen from the impugned order, that the assertion of the landlord is not only on the basis of non-consumption of electricity but it is also corroborated by oral testimony of various witnesses. In fact, it is specifically observed by the Appellate Court that non- consumption of electricity is not considered to be the sole ground for holding that the shop is lying vacant. The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the case of Sohan Lal and Anr. Vs. Gurbachan Singh, 1989 (2) RCR (Rent) 363 to urge that mere consumption of electricity by itself is not sufficient to hold that tenant had ceased to occupy the premises, as such, would not be of any avail to him. The ratio of law as held in this case is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Here, non-consumption of electricity is CIVIL REVISION NO.1471 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: not the only ground on which the eviction is ordered. Number of witnesses were examined who deposed that the shop was seen lying closed. It is the cumulative effect of the entire evidence which has been considered to hold that the landlord had succeeded in proving that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop for a continuous period of four months. The oral account given by the witnesses produced on behalf of the petitioner have rightly not been believed as they did not specify the period when they saw the shop lying open. Even the documents, which were produced on record, were kept as marked documents only and as such, can not legally be taken into consideration as valid piece of evidence. Mr.Bali is justified in saying that the appreciation of evidence in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction may not be called for. The counsel has referred to various judgments to urge that while exercising jurisdiction, the Court does not act as a regular third Appellate Court and can interference only within the scope of Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. In this regard, he has referred to the case of Shiv Lal Vs. Sat Parkash and another, 1993 Supp.(2) Supreme Court Cases 345. It is also held in this case that the principles underlying the provision of Section 13(2) (iii)(v) does not require the cessation of tenancy in question. The only condition which has to be satisfied is that non user of the building for the requisite period. As held in this case, the principle underlying this provision is that if premises is not required by the tenant, it should become available to another person who may be in need thereof and it is not required of the landlord to prove that the tenant by his CIVIL REVISION NO.1471 OF 2006 :{ 5 }: conduct has brought the tenancy to an end and with that intention discontinued the occupation. The counsel would also refer to the cases of Lachhman Dass Vs. Santokh Singh, (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 201 and Ram Dass Vs. Davinder, (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 684 in regard to the scope of revision power of the High Court. The evidence is rightly appreciated by the Appellate Court and would not call for any further interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction which is not the scope of the jurisdiction so exercised. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, prays for time to vacate the premises. It would be fair to grant time to the petitioner to vacate the shop. The petitioner would have a period of three months to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the respondent. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the Court of Rent Controller on or before 30.7.2008 to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the respondent on or before October 7, 2008 and to clear the arrears of rent due upto the said date. July 07,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE