Civil Revision No. 4537 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4537 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.7.2010 Sat Pal …Petitioner Versus Rajinder Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises rented out to him. In his report dated 30.6.2006 Ex.A1, the Local Commissioner has specifically stated that there was no bulb, tube, fan, wooden fitting and electric fitting in the shop but there was an electric meter, which was numbered as KC- 13-3790. AW.3 Naresh Kumar, Lower division Clerk from the office of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), stated that as per the record, the demised premises was lying closed since August 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was non appreciation of evidence on the part of both the Courts below as the electric connection pertained to Shop No. 431/1 and not to Shop No. 433/8. Civil Revision No. 4537 of 2010 2 The entire thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner revolved around above submission, therefore, it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts of the case. Rajinder Kumar, landlord, had rented out one shop bearing MCK No. 433/8, detailed in paragraph No.1 of the eviction petition, situated in Shashtri Market in the Municipal Town of Kaithal, to the petitioner. It will be pertinent to mention here that Rajinder Kumar became landlord as he succeeded to the land by way of a decree dated 3.5.2006, passed in Civil Suit No. 388 of 2001 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the respondent has failed to pay or tender the arrears of rent and House Tax since 1.3.2003, if so its effect? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of more than four month without any reasonable cause, if so its effect OPP 3. Whether the arrears of rent claimed by the petitioner are barred by limitation? OPR 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 5. Relief. Since the arrears of rent were paid in the Court, issue No.1 was decided against the landlord. However, regarding issue No.2, the Civil Revision No. 4537 of 2010 3 finding was that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the premises. While appreciating the evidence, the Rent Controller, Kaithal, has very fairly excluded that report Ex.A1 of Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate, who was appointed as a Local Commissioner in another suit titled as “Sat Pal v. Rajinder Kumar and Others”, who had stated that the demised shop was lying abandoned. The Rent Controller, Kaithal, as a matter of abundant caution, has held that since the landlord was not party to that suit, therefore, the report Ex.A1 could not be relied upon. However, the Rent Controller, Kaithal, has relied upon the evidence of Local Commissioner, appointed in the present eviction petition, who had submitted his report Ex.A7. From the observations of the Local Commissioner, which was duly corroborated by the evidence of AW.3 Naresh Kumar, Clerk from the Board along with the fact that the tenant was in arrears of house tax, both the Courts below arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner/tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises for the period specified in the Act. The findings of both the Courts below are just, appropriate and depict correct appreciation of the evidence. Thus, the revisional Court will be hesitant to come to the rescue of the petitioner. Hence, finding no patent illegality and irregularity in the orders passed by both the Courts below, present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 23, 2010 “DK”