IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5709 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.11.2009 Manjeet Singh .....Petitioner versus Smt.Santosh Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Arun Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the eviction order dated 9.3.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani, in respect of the demised premises, comprising a shop situated at Sarai Chopta in Bhiwani, as well as against the order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the above stated order of eviction. [2] The respondent-landlord sought the petitioner's eviction, inter-alia, on the grounds of : (i) non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.9.2000 @ Rs.1200/- per month, and (ii) that the petitioner has ceased to occupy a shop for a period of more than 4 months preceding to the date of filing of C.R. No.5709 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the eviction petition and the shop was lying vacant. [3] The petitioner contested the eviction petition and disputed the rate of rent, which, according to the petitioner, was only Rs.225/- per month with taxes. The petitioner also denied that the shop was lying closed or that he was doing the hotel business at Khairari Mor as alleged by the respondent-landlord. [4] In order to substantiate his pleas, the respondent-landlord examined Shiv Raj Singh (AW1), an official from the Electricity Department, who brought the records and deposed that the petitioner had obtained electricity connection No.C-1247 for the demised premises but the said meter was dis-connected on 23.4.1999 as per the entry in his register (Ex.A-6). The Landlord himself appeared in the witness box (AW-2) and reiterated both the grounds of eviction. Prem Singh, Process Server, was also produced in support of his report Ex.A/1, wherein it was reported that at the time when he visited the demised premises, the same was lying closed. Ram Avtar Gupta, Advocate (AW7) who was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Court, was also examined to prove his report alongwith the documents Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-7 which included the notice sent by him to the parties (Ex.A-2); the site plan (Ex.A-3); his report (Ex.A-4), another site plan (Ex.A-5) and the memo of parties present at the spot (Ex.A-7). [5] In order to rebut the claim of the landlord, the petitioner- tenant produced certain bills (Ex.RW/1 to RW/5) to prove that he has been carrying on the `printing work' in the demised premises. He also produced C.R. No.5709 of 2009 (O&M) 3 a copy of the judgment dated 14.6.1999 passed by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani (Ex.RW/6), in support of his plea that the rent of the demised premises is Rs.225/- per month. [6] On consideration of the above referred evidence, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner-tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises w.e.f. 1.4.2000 and the same was lying closed, thereby entitling the respondent-landlord to seek eviction on that count. The Rent Controller relied upon the records of the Electricity Department which clearly suggest that the Electricity supply to the demised premises stood disconnected w.e.f. 23.4.1999 and the premises was found locked and lying closed by the Local Commissioner Mr.Ram Avtar Gupta (AW-7), as well as by Prem Chand-Process Server. The Rent Controller also referred to the oral evidence of the shop-keepers in the vicinity, some of whom came forward and deposed that the shop in dispute is lying closed. There is reference to the deposition made by two other witnesses to the effect that the petitioner-tenant is running a hotel in a different premises and at a different place. [7] It may be noticed here that since the arrears of rent, as assessed by the Rent Controller, were tendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 3.8.2001 and as such the first ground of eviction is no longer survived. The second ground for eviction i.e., the petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of more than four months was held to have been proved by the Rent Controller. [8] Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which has also C.R. No.5709 of 2009 (O&M) 4 been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, vide the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2009 after re-appraisal of the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the shop in dispute was lying closed atleast for a period of about 9 months before the respondent filed the eviction petition. The Appellate Authority has also relied upon the same set of evidence and has confirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on Issue No.2, giving rise to this revision petition. [9] Counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the records perused. [10] Two fold contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is argued that Mr. Ram Avtar Gupta, Advocate (AW-7)-the Local Commissioner, whose report has been heavily relied upon by the Courts below, is a man of doubtful credence as the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana in a recent enquiry report dated 14.2.2009 has observed that he has got his Bar Licence on the basis of a fake degree. Secondly, it is urged that even after the alleged closure of the shop, the respondent-landlord has been receiving the rent, therefore, he is estopped by his act and conduct from alleging that the petitioner-tenant has ceased to occupy the demised shop. [11] In my considered view, both the contentions are liable to be rejected. Firstly, there is nothing on record to suggest that the enquiry report, a photocopy of which has been relied upon by counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, has been accepted and the license of Mr.Ram Avtar Gupta, Advocate, cancelled by the Bar Council of C.R. No.5709 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Punjab and Haryana. Be that as it may, the action, if any, taken by the Bar Council during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, has no bearing on the fact finding enquiry report submitted by Sh.Gupta in his capacity as a Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. The records reveal that the Local Commissioner gave notice to the parties and has categorically reported that the demised premises is lying closed. There is not an iota of evidence to cast doubt on the said report submitted by the Local Commissioner. [12] Similarly, so long as the petitioner-tenant retains the physical possession of the demised premises, he is liable to pay rent for each and every day. The payment or receipt of rent by a tenant or a landlord, perse, does not amount to condonation of a disqualification incurred by the tenant against retention of possession of the let out premises. [13] No other ground has been raised on behalf of the petitioner. [14] For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. [15] The revision petition stands dismissed. 04-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE