Civil Revision No. 5157 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5157 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.8.2010 Sat Pal …Petitioner Versus Kamla Devi and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The demised shop was rented out to the petitioner in the year 1973 at the rate of Rs.90/- per month. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced to Rs.250/- per month. It is an admitted fact that in the year 1977, the petitioner/tenant was appointed as S.S.A. in the Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Central Town, Jalandhar. Both the Courts below have caused eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the demised shop for more than four years. For coming to this conclusion, both the Courts below considered the following circumstances:- A) That the petitioner is in Government service. B) The electricity consumed in the demised shop, for running the business, was two units, five units and sixteen units, respectively. Civil Revision No. 5157 of 2010 2 C) No account books have been placed on record to show that the financial transactions have been carried out from the demised premises. D) The plea raised that the father and son of the petitioner have been running the demised shop was not accepted as they had not appeared in the witness box. Taking the totality of these circumstances into consideration, both the Courts below came to a conclusion that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in Amar Nath v. Guru Ramdass Textile Mills 2002(1) Rent Control Reporter 595 to contend that for determining as to whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises, the Court has to determine as to whether the tenant is in control of the demised shop or not. Learned counsel further relied upon Kedar Nath (Died) though Lrs v. Rattan Chand 2000(1) Rent Control Reporter 553 to say that it is an intention of the tenant, which is to be seen that he wanted to abandon the demised shop or not. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Baldev Sahai Bangia v. R.C. Bhasin 1982(2) Rent Control Reporter 133 to say that the family included near relations of the landlord also. There can be no quarrel with the reasoning adopted in the above said judgments but when the reasoning is applied on the facts of the present case, the concurrent findings, recorded by both the Courts Civil Revision No. 5157 of 2010 3 below, cannot be set aside. The circumstances, spelt by both the Courts below, considered in totality, justify the inference drawn by them that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that both the Courts below have overlooked the facts that the petitioner was paying the licence fee to the Municipal Corporation. The circumstances, which both the Courts below have relied, overweigh the solitary circumstance pleaded by the petitioner. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted two months' time to vacate the premises in dispute. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 17, 2010 “DK”