IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.200 of 2008. Date of decision: 6.3.2009. Smt.Dropti Devi …Petitioner Versus Sh.Jagdish Kumar …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Adarsh Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Y.P. Sood, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The tenant challenges the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below ordering her eviction from the suit premises on the ground that she has ceased to occupy the premises. The learned Rent Controller on the evidence before him, concluded that the premises in the tenancy of the petitioner herein (which tenancy she has inherited after the death of her husband Kishan Chand) has not been occupied by her for a continuous period of one year before institution of the eviction 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 petition and no reasonable cause has been proved on record of such non-occupation. In order to prove his case, the landlord appeared as PW-1 reiterating the allegations in the pleadings and also stating that there was no electricity consumed in the premises for a continuous period of 12 months before the institution of the petition. He also established that she was residing with her son- in-law in Jatog Cantt. PW-2 Sushil Kumar, Clerk from the Electrical Sub Division, Jatog, proved that the electricity consumption from August, 2005 to August, 2006 was nil and subsequently only about ten units were consumed. PW-3 Surinder Kumar also supported the case of the landlord. Learned Rent Controller found this evidence clear and cogent and as establishing the case of the landlord. The evidence produced by the tenant was found to be unreliable and the claim put forth by her that she was admitted in hospital for treatment etc. was held as having not been established. These findings of fact were reaffirmed by the learned appellate Court. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant has made a number of submissions on the legality of the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below. He urges that the Courts below were in clear error in accepting the case as put forth by the landlord which otherwise was not established on the record of the case. This submission made on behalf of the tenant cannot be accepted. I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The judgments do not 3 show that the Courts below have acted perversely in accepting the claim put forth by the landlord. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the eviction of the petitioner-tenant is stayed subject to the following conditions:- (i) The tenant shall vacate the premises on or before 31st March, 2010 on or before which date the vacant possession of the premises shall be handed over to the respondent herein. The tenant-petitioner shall file an undertaking by way of an affidavit in this Court undertaking that:- (a) vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises shall be handed over to the respondent on or before 31st March, 2010; (b) the tenant-petitioner shall not create any interest or otherwise deal with the property in a manner which will create any hindrance in the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the respondent herein or his authorized representative. (c) She will not change the user of the premises, create any licence, lease, encumbrance, interest etc. in the suit 4 premises either personally or through anyone of her family members, agent etc. which will hamper the delivery of the vacant premises to the landlord on the date undertaken by her i.e. 31st March, 2010. (d) She will continue paying use and occupation charges to the landlord regularly in bimonthly intervals or every month as convenient to her and shall not default in the payment of rent. (e) The affidavit will contain a clear undertaking that in the case of breach of any of the conditions as set out above, or any act of omission or commission committed by her, which would render the handing over of the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in dispute herein not only will she be liable for eviction from the premises but would also be proceeded against for contempt of Court. An affidavit agreeing and undertaking to abide by these terms shall be filed within a period of 8 weeks from today. This petition is disposed of. CMP No.979 of 2008. The order dated 8th January, 2009 is vacated. This application is disposed of. March 6, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.