Civil Revision No.4330 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4330 of 2011 Date of decision 25.7.2011. Amarjit Singh ...... Petitioner. versus Pushpa Devi and another ...... Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI . J. Amarjit Singh-respondent-tenant has directed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 30.4.2011 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana against the order dated 14.12.2009, vide which the appeal preferred by the tenant-respondent was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner has preferred petition for ejectment of the respondent from the demised Civil Revision No.4330 of 2011 2 premises/shop fully described in the head note of the petition on the averments that property in question was ownership of one Piara Singh and the demised premises were on rent with respondent @ Rs.150/- per month apart from house tax. Piara Singh sold the property to the petitioners vide sale deed dated 19.3.1999, intimation regarding which was given to the respondent, rent qua the demised premises was settled at the rate of Rs.450/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1999. Respondent undertook to pay the house tax, rent stands paid upto December 1999 against receipts. The respondent is required to be evicted from the demised premises on the following grounds :- a) The respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. January 2000 @ Rs.450/- per month. b) The respondent has not paid/tendered the house tax w.e.f. 2000. c ) The respondent has ceased to occupy the premises for the last about three years and has permanently closed the shop. The respondent was requested many times to vacate the demised premises and to hand over the vacant possession thereof to the petitioner, but he paid no heed, forcing the petitioners to come up with the present petition. 3. Upon being put to the notice of the petition that the respondent came present and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the petition lacks maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, giving his version it is stated that respondent took the demised premises on rent at a monthly rent of Rs.150/- including house tax from Niranjan Singh vide Rent Note dated 10.8.1978. After his death, rent was being paid to Civil Revision No.4330 of 2011 3 Smt.Gaura Devi, his wife. After February 1999, nobody came to receive the rent from the respondent. The petitioners have not shown any document regarding their ownership qua the demised premises. If petitioners have purchased the property in question the respondent is ready to pay rent to them. The respondent did not take the property on rent @ Rs.450/- per month. The respondent is still in possession of the demised premises and did not cease to occupy the same. The postures adopted by the respondent on the other averments of the petition is of total denial and dismissal of the same is asked for. 4. Petitioner filed rejoinder and reiterated the contents of the petition and denied those of the written statement. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties ? 2. Whether rate of rent was Rs.450/- per month ?OPP 3. Whether the respondent has not paid house tax of the property in dispute to the applicant, if so its effect ?OPP 4. Whether respondent has ceased to occupy the property in dispute and has permanent closed the shop ?OPP 5. Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute ?OPP 6. Relief. 6. The parties have led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. The Rent Controller, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the evidence, allowed the petition of the petitioner-landlord Civil Revision No.4330 of 2011 4 for eviction of the respondent-tenant vide order dated 14.12.2009. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of eviction, the respondent-tenant preferred First appeal before the Appellate Authority, which appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.4.2011. 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders dated 14.12.2009 and 30.4.2011, the respondent-tenant preferred the present revision petition. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case with his able assistance. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that eviction order has been passed by the Rent Controller on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the premises for more than four months prior to the filing of the eviction petition without any sufficient cause. The reasoning given by the Rent Controller is in respect of electricity meter, which was disconnected two years prior to the filing of the petition. It is submitted that both the Courts below have reached to the conclusion that tenant ceases to occupy only on the basis of evidence of electricity department. In order to prove this ground the landlord has to prove the actual loss of control of the premises and this loss of control was with the intention to obstruct the tenancy rights from the premises. Mere closure of business for some period cannot be termed to be ceases to occupy and to support this contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority Amar Nath vs. Guru Ram Dass Textile Mills and another 2001(2) RLR 480. 12. I have carefully gone through the said authority. The same is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In that case, it was not Civil Revision No.4330 of 2011 5 established by the landlord that tenant has removed the machinery which was installed in the demised premises and it was also not proved that he has started business any where else. On the facts of the present case, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for a period of more than four months prior to the filing of the rent petition without any sufficient cause. That being a finding of fact cannot be interfered, moreso, when there is no ground for interfering in the same. It was not only on the ground of electricity supply, which was disconnected two years prior to the filing of the petition, that was taken into account by both the Courts below but the other evidence has also been duly appreciated by both the Courts below. There is nothing on the file that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence produced by the tenant and that undue weightage have been given to the evidence produced by the landlord. The tenant/petitioner was working as Electrician and it cannot be believed that without electricity, an Electrician can carry on the business of repair of electrical equipment's. 13 So in view of the above discussion, revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 14 The petitioner is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within two months from today. 15. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 25 , 2011 sv