C.M. No.17430-CII of 2010 and -1- C.R. No.4472 of 2000 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.17430-CII of 2010 and C.R. No.4472 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2010 Madan Lal ……Applicant/Petitioner VERSUS Rakesh Sahney ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. 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 ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M. No.17430-CII of 2010 C.M. No.17430-CII of 2010 and -2- C.R. No.4472 of 2000 (O&M) For the reasons stated, application is allowed. Revision petition is restored to its original number. C.R. No.4472 of 2000 (O&M) 1. Landlord-petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Re- striction Act, 1949 (for brevity ‘the Act’) challenging the judgment dated 29.7.2000, passed by District Judge, Hoshiarpur/Appellate Authority, whereby appeal filed by the tenant was allowed and evic- tion petition filed by the landlord was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner/landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that respondent/tenant has not paid the rent of the premises in dispute since 1.9.1995; that the tenant has constructed his own shop on Sutehri road and has shifted the business on that shop from the shop in dispute since 31.8.1994 and now the tenant has ceased to occupy the shop for a continuous period of four months w.e.f. 15.1.1995; that the tenant has started using the demised premises as a godown, and thus had used the demised premises for the purpose other than for which it was leased, without the written consent of the landlord. C.M. No.17430-CII of 2010 and -3- C.R. No.4472 of 2000 (O&M) 3. Tenant/respondent contested the eviction petition by way of filing written statement. Tenant has refuted all the allegations made by the landlord in the eviction petition. 4. Learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 25.8.1998 allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord on two grounds that tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted shop w.e.f. 15.1.1995 and further on the ground that tenant without the written consent of the landlord has started using tenanted shop as a godown. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, tenant/respondent has preferred statutory appeal under the Act which was registered as Rent Appeal No.20 of 14.9.98. Learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur/Appellate Authority reversed the finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller on two issues i.e. tenant has ceased to occupy the shop as well as tenant has started using the shop as a godown. Learned Appellate Authority has observed that landlord/petitioner could not prove that tenant has ceased to occupy the shop w.e.f 15.1.1995. It is further observed by the learned Appellate Authority that finding of learned Rent Controller, on the basis of less electricity consumption that tenant has ceased to occupy the shop, is not correct. Learned Appellate Authority after discussing entire evidence on record, par- ticularly the bank record, and the accounts book maintained by the C.M. No.17430-CII of 2010 and -4- C.R. No.4472 of 2000 (O&M) tenant, came to the conclusion that tenant is still occupying the shop in dispute and has not ceased to occupy the same. Learned Appel- late Authority also held that tenant is still using tenanted part as a shop and has not converted it into godown. 6. Learned Counsel for the landlord vehemently argued that finding of the learned Rent Controller should have not been disturbed by the Appellate Authority. He further argued that an electric meter installed in the shop would suggest that after January, 1995 there is a less electricity consumption, so it should be presumed that shop was not being occupied by the tenant. He further contends that had tenant been in the possession for business in the shop in dispute, more electricity would have been consumed as was being consumed earlier. 7. This Court finds that at one place, landlord is suggesting that tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted shop and yet at an- other place, landlord is asserting that tenant is using the tenanted shop as godown. If tenant is still using the shop in question as go- down, it means that tenant has not ceased to occupy the tenanted portion. Now question comes, as to whether tenant is using shop in question as godown. Learned first Appellate Court has taken into consideration the bank record and accounts book which suggest that still business is going on in the shop in dispute. This Court does not C.M. No.17430-CII of 2010 and -5- C.R. No.4472 of 2000 (O&M) find any fault with the finding of fact that tenant is still doing business in the tenanted shop. 8. In the opinion of this Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction ordinarily this Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence. In the revisional jurisdiction, well reasoned judgment passed by the Court below should not ordinarily be disturbed even if two views on the evidence available on record are possible. 9. From the perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the judgment passed by the Appel- late Authority. 10. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 20th July, 2010 JUDGE ashish