-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6753 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.07.2011 Firm Banarsi Dass Jagdish Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. Mahant Tarn Parshad Chela Mahant Chander Parshad ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (Oral). Shorn of unnecessarily details it is suffice to say that respondent landlord filed Eviction Petition against the petitioner on various grounds including that petitioner tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises. Rent Controller dismissed the petition. However, Appellate Authority accepted the appeal of landlord and ordered eviction of the petitioner holding that he has ceased to occupy the building. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the Appellate Authority has reverse the well reasoned judgment of the Rent Controller by misreading and misinterpreting the evidence on record while holding that the petitioner has cease to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of more than 4 months. It is relevant to refer to the finding of the Appellate Authority which reads thus: -2- "I have considered, the contention of both sides and have gone through the file of the learned lower Court and find that in para 4-A of the petition, the appellant/petitioner has raised the plea that the respondent has ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of more than four months without any reasonable and/or sufficient cause immediately before the filing of the ejectment petition and it is further pleaded that in fact the demised premises is lying closed and locked by the respondent for the past more than one year and no business is being carried on therein. It is further averred that the electricity connection in the demised premises also stands disconnected. In rely to these averments, the respondent in his written statement has denied that he has ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of more than 4 months and also denied that the demised premises is lying closed for more than one year and no business is being carried on thereon. The case of the respondent is that he is in continuous occupation and possession of the demised premises and is regularly doing his business and has never ceased to occupy the same. It has been specifically replied that however the respondent's main business is to store and sell the tea in the demised premises and no electricity is required for the said purpose. Therefore, the reply of the respondent as regards the electric connection is that the kind of business which he is running in the demised premises does not require any electricity. But the appellant/petitioner has examined A.W.3 Jagir Singh, LDC of Punjab State Electricity Board, who brought the matter reading book in respect of account No. GD 44172 in the name of Banarsi Dass, 61, Mahana Singh Road, Amritsar and as per the said record, -3- there is no consumption of electricity from the electric meter from 24.04.1998 till the date he appeared i.e. 21.03.2003 and he deposed that as per the meter reading, the electric meter installed in the premises has also been removed by the department and there is no electric meter at the above said address. He further deposed that the true copies of the meter reading book are Ex.AW3/5 and AW3/6. He also brought the recod of the disconnection of the electric meter in the above said premises and as per the record brought by him, the electric meter was disconnected on 1.12.1997, vide PUC No.8/052636. Therefore, the case of the respondent is that he does not need electricity connection, but the record produced in evidence by the petitioner shows that there was an electric meter installed in the demised premises in the name of Banarsi Dass which later on was removed by the department and the meter was disconnected on 1.12.1997 and further there was no consumption of electricty from 24.4.1998 till the date he appeared in the witness box; meaning thereby that the respondent has made an attempt to misrepresent and convince this Court that the evidence with regard to electricity need not be looked and it should not be the ground of having ceased to occupy the premises whereas A.W.3 has proved that the electric connection was installed in the demised premises and was got disconnected on 1.12.1997. Therefore, applying of the electric connection certainly shows the necesssity of the same and disconnection of the same on 1.12.1997 and no consumption of electricity from 24.4.1998 till date certainly shows that the respondent has ceased to occupy the demised premises. Further as far as the case of the respondent that he being the son of Banarsi -4- Dass is running business in the demised premises and that the said firm M/s Banarsi Dass Jagdish Kumar is known as Jagdish Kumar HUF is concerned, the evidence adduced in this regard cannot be read since it has never been the case of the respondent in his written statement. Hence the plea of the respondent in this regard is not liable to be accepted and the record got produced by the respondent is of no assistance to him. Further R.W.1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has not brought the account books of Jagdish Kumar Arora HUF nor he has brought the assessment record of Jagdish Kumar Arora HUF. Further he admitted that no business under the name and style of M/s Banarsi Dass Jagdish Kumar is being conducted in the shop in question. He also admitted that his father after taking the shop in question on rent had got installed electric connection in his personal name and he admitted that his father after taking on rent the shop in question vide rent note Ex.AW5/1, there was no electricty fitted in the shop in question. He also admitted that his father is residing in Delhi for the last 10/12 years permanently." A perusal of the aforesaid finding would show that it is not in dispute that the tenancy was in favour of the firm Banarsi Dass Jagdish Kumar through its proprietor in the year 1973 and since then there was an electricity connection and the electricity connection was disconnected from the demised premises on 01.12.1997 and thereafter till date no electricity connection has been provided. Admittedly, the electricity connection was taken by Banarsi Das in his individual name in the year 1973 and the same was got disconnected on 01.12.1997. Thus, it can not be argued that there was no electricity needed. While recording the finding, -5- the Appellate Authority has also found that all the documents produced on record show that the petitioner firm was not running the business. In fact the documents are relating to the firm Jagdish Kumar HUF and not of the firm Banarsi Dass Jagdish Kumar. It may also be noticed that even at this stage it could not be pointed out by producing any document on record to connect the aforesaid bills which were produced by the petitioner to show that the business is being run in the demised premises by the firm M/s Banarsi Dass Jagdish Kumar. In this view of the matter, finding of fact can not be interfered by this court. Moreover, Banarsi Dass proprietor of the petitioner firm has not stepped up into witness box and Jagdish Kumar Arora while appearing as RW-I has admitted in his cross-examination that Banarsi Dass is residing in Delhi permanently. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is a partner in the firm Banarsi Dass Jagdish Kumar, which was the tenant of the demised premises. Petitioner has also admitted that no business is being run in the demised shop in the name of M/s Banarsi Dass Jagdish Kumar and it is not his pleaded case that firm M/s Banarsi Dass Jagdish Kumar is known as firm Jagdish Kumar Arora HUF now. In the absence of such pleadings no amount of evidence in this regard can be seen. In view of the aforesaid facts which have been established on record the findings of the Appellate Authority can not be interfered with. Dismissed. July 21, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) Harjeet JUDGE