IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1492 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:22.04.2009 Lalita Kumari and others ...Petitioners versus Mohan Lal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. The admitted case was that the property had been let out to Dharampal and his sister Raksha Devi. Dharampal was admittedly unavailable to run the business and his whereabouts were not known. The co-tenant Raksha Devi died and her legal representatives namely the daughters were impleaded. It was contended on behalf of the daughters that they were running the business after the death of Raksha Devi. Civil Revision No.1492 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - 2. It was brought out in evidence that all the daughters had been married and they had been living away from the place of business with their respective husbands. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the contention that the daughters were coming to open the shop in turns and there had been no cessation to occupy the premises as canvassed by the landlord. The authorities below took note of the fact that there were no sales tax and income tax returns as proof of their continuation in business. The tenants sought to rely on the fact that the electricity connection had not been cut and the meter readings were regularly noted down by a person from the Electricity Board and the charges were also being paid by them It so happened that RW-3 Meter Reader himself stated even in the chief examination that the premises was not being occupied by anyone and even his evidence had not been helpful to the cause of the petitioners. 3. The forceful contention of the learned counsel is that the legal requirement of cessation to occupy ought to be such that it could never be inferred from the non-payment of income tax and sales tax returns that the business was not being run. If two views are possible on a given set of facts and the authorities below have accepted the contention of the landlord and rejected the contention that the persons claiming to be tenants that the landlord had proved that there was no one in occupation of the premises, I have no reason to take a different view in revision on a consideration of a pure question of fact. The findings of the authorities below accord with the evidence led on facts and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Civil Revision No.1492 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - 4. Learned counsel seeks for time to vacate the premises but having regard to the evidence that the persons claiming to be legal representatives of the tenant have ceased to occupy, I see no reason to accommodate the request. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.04.2009 sanjeev