Civil Revision No. 3323 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3323 of 2008 Date of Decision: June 03, 2008 M/s Vishal Bharti Sales Co-op. and Others .....Petitioners VERSUS Harbhajan Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Sukhdev S.Kanwal, Advocate for the respondent-caveator. T.P.S .MANN, J. Application for ejectment filed by the respondent against the petitioners from a shop situated in Gurjeet Market, Dhangu Road, Pathankot was allowed by learned Rent Controller, Pathankot on 22.8.2005. The petitioners then filed an appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment dated 3.5.2008. The tenants are now before this Court by way of a revision under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Civil Revision No. 3323 of 2008 -2- The ejectment of the petitioners was sought by the respondent on two grounds i.e. non-payment of rent and the petitioners ceasing to occupy the shop from 1994 to 1998 and the shop was lying closed when the rent application was filed. However, the learned lower Courts found that the petitioners were not in arrears of rent and the corresponding issue was, accordingly, decided against the respondent. The other issue regarding the petitioners ceasing to occupy the shop from 1994 to 1998 was decided against the petitioners. As is clear from the testimony of Kartar Chand, partner of the tenant-firm there was practically no electricity consumption for the aforementioned period. Said Katar Chand admitted in his cross- examination that the meter reading remained the same i.e. at 579 for all those years. There is no allegation that the electricity meter was defective. Even an official from the Electricity Department had come and he stated that the meter was in working order during the aforementioned period. Moreover, the telephone connection obtained by the petitioners was found to have been disconnected on 9.11.1993 due to non payment of the bills. Both these facts clearly point out that the petitioners had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises. There is another startling fact noticed by the learned appellate Court by referring to letter Ex.A-3 written by Kartar Chand, partner of the tenant firm that he wanted only “Pagri” to vacate the shop. Said Kartar Chand has also admitted that he had started business in Civil Revision No. 3323 of 2008 -3- Delhi in 1995 and had been visiting Pathankot only in respect of a cheque bouncing case, which was pending against him. Raj Rani, another partner of the tenant-firm claimed that she was doing typing work privately in the shop in dispute, side by side the business of her husband. However, she failed to name any particular person or firm or institution, who had been getting type work from her. To explain her presence in the shop, she stated that she had been using a fan and light. This fact was clearly in contradiction with the established fact that no electricity was consumed in the tenanted premises from the period from 1994 to 1998. On the basis of evidence available on the file, the learned lower Courts were justified in holding that the petitioners had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises. Ejectment was rightly ordered. The concurrent findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Consequently, there is no merit in the revision and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The tenanted premises was let out on rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. It is stated on behalf of the caveator-respondent that rent had been paid up-to the month of January 2005. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Resultantly, the petitioners are granted time up-to 30.9.2008 to vacate the tenanted Civil Revision No. 3323 of 2008 -4- premises and hand-over its vacant possession to the respondent, subject to their appearing before learned Rent Controller, Pathankot on or before 15.6.2008 and giving an undertaking that they shall vacate the tenanted premises and hand-over its vacant possession to the respondent by the aforementioned date. They shall also be required to pay the arrears of rent from the month of January, 2005 onwards up to 30.9.2008 in advance, on or before 15.6.2008. (T.P.S.MANN) June 03, 2008. JUDGE Pds