IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4304 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 28, 2010 Satpal. …Petitioner Versus Kamla Devi and another. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate, for the respondents. S.D. Anand, J. A petition for ejectment of the tenant (petitioner herein) from the tenanted premises was allowed by the learned Rent Controller in favour of the respondents – landlady/landlord vide order dated 30.8.2007. In an appeal filed against that verdict, the petitioner – tenant filed a plea to obtain the leave of the Court to adduce additional evidence, and thereby, prove on record four electricity bills pertaining to the relevant period. It may be noticed, in the context, that the impugned ejectment order upheld, the plea raised by the C.R. No. 4304 of 2008 respondents that the petitioner – tenant had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises without any sufficient cause for a continuous period of more than four years. Further averment made in the context was that the petitioner – tenant had joined service as SSA in Punjab State Electricity Board Sub Division, Central Town, Jalandhar. The respondent – landlady also raised a plea of requirement for personal bona fide residence and commercial use because she wants to run a boutique therein with the assistance of her daughter-in-law who is well conversant with stitching etc. and will help her run the boutique. The plea did not find favour with the learned Appellate Authority, which negatived it vide impugned order dated 28.07.2008. The petitioner – tenant is in revision against it. The precise pleadings of the respondents were to the notice of the petitioner – tenant. In order to succeed, the respondents had to prove the averment that the petitioner – tenant had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises. The onus in response was upon the petitioner – tenant to prove the contrary. One of the modes of proof could be to produce the electricity bills pertaining to the relevant period of time. It is not the averment on behalf of the petitioner – tenant that those bills were not available at an early point of time. Those 2 C.R. No. 4304 of 2008 bills pertain to the year 1997 and 1998. The ejectment petition had been filed in the year 1998. In that view of things, the petitioner – tenant could not be validly heard to argue that the requirement of production of evidence aforementioned was not to his knowledge. The learned Appellate Authority validly negatived the plea. That order, and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, require affirmation and it is so ordered, accordingly. Disposed of accordingly. January 28, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3