1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4421 OF 2008 (Kishor Bhuwanlal Karwat vs. Smt. Ratnidevi wd/o Thaddumal Chugh ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 08, 2008. Heard Shri Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner – tenant and Shri Paunikar, learned counsel for the respondent. The matter was heard earlier also and the matter was adjourned to enable the parties to assist this Court appropriately. The Courts below have concurrently found that the petitioner kept the premises locked i.e. unused for more than six months without any just and sufficient reason. The contention of Shri Chhabra, learned counsel was that there was no plea of non user, that there is no finding of non user for a period in excess of six months and lastly it was argued that burden to establish reasons for non user will shift to the petitioner and initial onus was upon the present respondent to establish that the business was not being done in the establishment. He contends that the Courts below have erroneously 2 applied the law on the point. Shri Paunikar, learned counsel states that though there is no specific finding in relation to particular period as such, the Courts below have found that non user for continuous period has been established. He invites attention to consideration of said aspect by the trial Court as also by the appellate Court and he contends that the affidavits filed on record as also evidence of witness of respondent disclosed such non user. The perusal of orders show that the affidavits mentioned that for continuous period of 1½ years, the premises were not used and were being kept locked. The affidavit of Lalchand has been filed in July 2004 and affidavit of Jawahar has been filed in January 2004. The suit itself has been filed in 2003. These affidavits clearly clinch the issue against the present petitioner. The defence of present petitioner is that the premises were not locked though it was tried to be argued that the premises were not used for some time, it was on account of repairs. The defence of present petitioner reveals that though he could not use the premises for bar but he tried to show that he was using the premises for running restaurant. The Courts below have found that no evidence has been 3 produced on record that premises were being used for restaurant. The purchases made, the accounts maintained and other documents could have been produced by the present petitioner to show that he was using the premises for restaurant. Shri Chhabra, learned counsel wants to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Dass vs. Davinder, reported at AIR 2004 SC 2162, where it has been held that the landlord has to make out a ground for eviction and burden is upon him. In view of the discussion above, it is apparent that in present matter, the landlord has discharged that burden. In these circumstances, concurrent findings of fact reached by the Courts below cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.