IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1036 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 10, 2010 Narender Kumar Jain and another. …Petitioners Versus Murti Mota Mahadev Ji …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr.O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. In a concurrent chord, the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority upheld the plea raised by the landlord (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) that the tenant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for the statutory period. Reliance, in support of the obtained view, was placed upon the fact that none of the petitioners had entered the witness box to testify on oath that they have not ceased to occupy the tenanted premises. It was noticed in the context that as many as six opportunities had been afforded to C.R. No. 1036 of 2007 them for the purpose aforementioned and their evidence had to be ultimately closed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 28.10.2004 which (order) has attained finality, for want of a challenge till date. The admission made by RW1 Duli Chand (to the effect that the electricity supply to the rented premises was disconnected about 4-5 years ago) also weighed with both the Courts in recording that finding. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the petition itself was incompetent as there was no precise averment in the course thereof that the petitioners had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises. A copy of the petition filed by the respondent was shown (at the time of argument) to this Court. It is apparent from a perusal of para no.3B thereof that the respondent had made a precise averment that the petitioners are not transacting any business in the tenanted premises for the last about 1-1/2 years. It virtually amounted to an averment that the petitioners had ceased to occupy the rented premises since the indicated period. Acceptance of the advocated view would amount to adopting a very technical view of the rent legislation, particularly when there is adequate material obtaining on the file to prove that the tenanted premises does not have an electricity connection for the last number of years and this fact had been conceded by none-else or other than a witness produced by the petitioners. This fact is also 2 C.R. No. 1036 of 2007 buttressed by the statement of PW2 Raj Kumar, a tenant in another part of the bigger premises (of which the tenanted premises is a part), to the effect that the electricity bill in respect of the tenanted premises was not handed over to him as those premises were found to be closed. His statement is to be appreciated in the light of the statement made by PW1 Sushil Kumar to the effect that the supply of electricity to the tenanted premises was disconnected w.e.f. October 1994 on account of non-payment of bill. It is obvious therefrom that the electricity bill talked of by PW2 Raj Kumar pertained to pre October, 1994 period. In view, thus, of the fact that none out of the petitioners entered the witness box to testify their stance on oath and also in view of the fact that there is complete want of evidence on their part to rebut the evidence adduced by the respondent, it cannot be argued that there is any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioners shall have two months’ time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. The interim order dated 26.02.2007 passed by this Court shall stand vacated. 3 C.R. No. 1036 of 2007 The vacation of the stay order shall be intimated to the learned Trial Court forthwith. February 10, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4