CR No.4166 of 2009 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4166 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:27.04.2011. Baldev Raj ...Petitioner Versus Dev Samaj Society Regd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the demised premises (shop) for a continuous period of 4 months prior to the filing of the eviction petition without any sufficient reason. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] for seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises (shop) which was let out to him @ `75/- per month besides electricity and water charges. The landlord sought eviction, inter alia, on the grounds of arrears of rent, ceased to occupy and impairment of value and utility of the demised premises. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant on 30.08.2008 on the ground of ceased to occupy which has been upheld by the learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 13.05.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below have committed an error of law in mis-reading the evidence produced by the petitioner. It is submitted that it has come in the evidence of PW2 that whenever the meter reading was taken, the shop was found to be CR No.4166 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ****** opened. He also submitted that mere non-consumption of electricity cannot be a ground for eviction and the landlord cannot take the benefit of the weakness of the case of the tenant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the eviction petition was filed in June 2001 and prior thereto for over one year the electricity bills show that there was no consumption of electricity inasmuch as the tenant did not even use the fan in the month of June. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record from which it has been found that there was total non- consumption of electricity from June 2000 to July 2001 as in the month of May 2000, the meter reading was found to be 7955 units which remained the same in the months of July 2000, September 2000, November 2000, January 2001 and March 2001. Thereafter, in May 2001, July 2001 and September 2001 the meter reading was 7956 units. Thus, there was no consumption of electricity at all for over a period of one year and even if the tenant was doing the business of confectionary in the demised premises, he was, at least, required to use electric fan. Moreover, no other documentary evidence has been led except for oral evidence, otherwise if the tenant was doing the business in the demised premises he could have produced on record some documentary evidence or even the photographs of his shop having been run. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Courts below whereby a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded for passing the order of eviction on the ground of ceased to occupy. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed though without any order as to costs. April 27, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge