Civil Revision No.6535 of 2008 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6535 of 2008 (O & M) Date of decision 22.1.2009 Rekha Aggarwal .....Appellant versus Janak Raj and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The eviction sought for by the landlord was on the ground of non-occupation of the premises for a period of four months and it was brought out through evidence that electricity connection had been disconnected in the year 1998 for non-payment of electricity charges and it had not been reconnected till the date of the petition and that further the tenant himself had submitted to the sales tax authority that he had ceased to conduct the business from 30.03.1998 and the assessment number was also withdrawn. Before the Rent Controller the tenant sought time to adduce evidence of his alleged conduct of business by refering to certain account books, which account books the Rent Controller found to have been fabricated. The appellate Authority confirmed the said findings. 2. The learned counsel for revision petitioner refers me to the decision of this Court in Geeta Bhalla and others versus Krishan Kumar (dead) through Lrs. Reported in 2006 (4) Civil Court case 683 that mere non-consumption of electricity by itself would not be sufficient to hold the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises. The case cannot be taken as Civil Revision No.6535 of 2008 (O & M) -2- laying down any proposition of law but should be understood as an expression in the given set of facts and circumstances. The respective findings rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have a cogent line of reasoning pointing out to the disconnection of electricity as one of the circumstances for closure of business and they accord with common sense and findings so rendered are not susceptible for variation in revision. The counsel seeks for time for vacating the premises but having regard to the fact that the eviction had been ordered on the ground that he has ceased to occupy, the question of granting time for vacating the premises does not arise. 3. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 22.1.2009 ( K. KANNAN ) A. Kaundal JUDGE