Civil Revision No.3522 of 1989 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3522 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:21.03.2009 Subhash Chander and others .............Petitioners Vs. Sh. Bishan Dass and others ............Respondents Present: Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The landlord's petition for eviction on the ground of cessation of occupation by the tenant from 22.01.1981 till the filing of the petition namely 04.03.1985 was dismissed by the Rent Controller but reversed in appeal and the tenant aggrieved by the order of Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner refers to findings of the Rent Controller where he has made caustic reference to the Advocate Commissioner's report where he has literally collected evidence from the locality and from adjacent persons to show that the tenant was not carrying on the business of the shop. According to the Rent Controller, the warrant of commission directed only inspection whether the shop was closed or opened and he had actually noticed at the time of his visit that the property was opened but still found fault by pointing out that he had gone beyond the warrant of commission by Civil Revision No.3522 of 1989 (O&M) -2- referring to other factors and therefore, he held the report to be unworthy. He made pointed reference to some bills raised for sale of cloth from the disputed property and also some of the octroi challans to infer that the defendant must be taken as carrying on the business and there was no justification to find that the tenant had abandoned the business. 3. At the revision, I directed the counsel to read the judgment of the Appellate Authority and to find out how the decision of the Rent Controller was reversed at the Appellate Court. The Appellate Authority has made observation of the fact that after the death of the original tenant Pishori Lal, the property had been closed and the tenant had ceased to occupy. The Appellate Authority picked up the trial from the fact that his son Ashok Kumar was associated with his father during his life time and after the life time of the father, the son was carrying on business in some other property while each one of his three sons were carrying on business in cloth in other places. Some of them within the same town and one in Bombay. The Appellate Authority also relied on the evidence of PW-2 who spoke to the fact that the Ashok Kumar was carrying on business in yet another property away from the disputed property and no business was being run at the disputed property. He made also references to the commissioner's report where he had observed that at the time of his visit, there was thick layer of dust inside the premises and the ceilings were filled with cobwebs. There was no stocks in the property except some old cloth lying here and there. Even just outside the entrance, there had been huge heaps of sand suggesting that no member of the Civil Revision No.3522 of 1989 (O&M) -3- public used the property to gain access into the shop. The Appellate Authority rejected the finding of the trial Court with reference to the physical observation made by the commissioner as well as the evidence placed through several witnesses. I find no reference, however, to the bills and octroi challans placed for consideration before the Rent Controller. If the bills had been made to third parties, it is not seen as to how all the documents have been produced by the vendor himself. They ought to have been held only in the hands of purchasers of clothes. These are all sporadic receipts and the bill books themselves have not been produced. The Rent Controller's finding that even electricity connection had not been disconnected and bills were paid regularly was dissented by the Appellate Authority by finding that the bills have not been for any high amounts but had been paid only for the minimum. 4. The finding of the Appellate Court reversing the decision appears to have been taken on consideration of documentary evidence placed before him and I find it difficult to take a different view from how the matter has been dealt with by the Appellate Court. There is no serious error or illegality in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. From the given set of evidence if two views are possible and the Appellate Authority which is the final court of fact has come to one view, I am afraid, I have no reason to differ from such a view. 5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 21, 2009 Pankaj*