CR No.2908 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.2908 of 2008 Date of decision May 20, 2009 Chaman Lal ....... Petitioner Versus Satya Sarup @ Vivek Sharma ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. L. Batta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mandeep K Sajjan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The only point which is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the day when the petition was filed the landlord had not proved that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises. He relied on the entry in the Meter Reader's report Annexure P-1 that while the property had remained locked on two earlier occasions when the Meter Reader Ganga Bishan had visited on 26.7.1991 and 26.11.1991, on the subsequent date on 26.1.1992 the property had not been locked and he had also recorded the meter reading as 1162 and on yet another visit of the property the meter reading was taken at the property as 1163. According to him this was decisive for non-suiting the petition for eviction when ground of cessation of occupation of the premises by the tenant. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies CR No.2908 of 2008 2 on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Ram Gopal Vs. Mathra Dass 1990 (2) RCR 66 that cessation shall continue till the date of filing of the petition. His contention now, which he had urged even before the Courts below and which had been adverted to in the impugned order, is that the mere fact that a shop had been opened to a Meter Reader for entry to take a reading does not amount to proof that the tenant had not ceased to occupy the premises. An occupation by the tenant invariably is for a purpose for putting the property to use in some way. The opening of door or being closed are factors which would be taken along with other relevant circumstances. While it is perfectly possible that a premises which is ceased to be in occupation is opened on a particular date or a tenant who continues in occupation of the premises may have already closed the door or the gate. Closure or opening that determines whether the tenant occupies the premises or not shall have to be seen in the context of the occupation of the premises which is a prolonged state of affairs. Statute sets out a period of four months as determinant of the fact that would enable a landlord to obtain eviction. 3. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have taken note of the fact that a number of registered letters sent to the tenant were received back undelivered as the shop had been lying closed. The Appellate Authority also had taken note of the Meter Reader's report that there had been practically no consumption of electricity. It also took note of the fact that the iron shutter of the shop had been eaten by rust and thick layer of dust was lying on it. In corroboration of the findings which the Appellate Authority obtained were documents AW-3/3, AW-6 and postal receipt AW-3/7 to AW-3/14 with the post man's remarks that the shop had been closed and the letters had been remaining unclaimed. It also took notice of the landlord's evidence as AW-3 that the shop was duly fitted with electricity connection and electricity bills proved on record as Exs. AW-3/15 CR No.2908 of 2008 3 to AW3/18 that no electricity consumption had been made and that the shop had been closed. Both the authorities below, having regard to the nature of business that the tenant was said to be carrying on business namely Bakery business with refrigerator to store cakes, pastries and soft drinks, found that the fact that electricity was not consumed to be most significant. It also noticed that the tenant had failed to produce any licence issued by the Municipal Corporation for carrying on with the business. Considering all the factors that were necessary for consideration to ascertain that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises a factual rendering was made which could suffer no intervention in revision. 4. The Civil revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 20 , 2009 archana