Civil Revision No. 5280 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5280 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.8.2010 Ashok Kumar …Petitioner Versus Jagdish Chand …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition wherein it was stated that his father had let out the demised premises to the father of the petitioner/tenant on 7.8.1956 for 11 months at the rate of Rs.33/- per month and lateron the rent was enhanced to Rs.200/- per month. The rent note dated 29.9.1995 was also executed. The following grounds were pleaded to seek eviction of the tenant:- A) The tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2004 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month and was also liable to pay house tax at the rate of 15% per annum. B) The petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for a period of more than four months. C) The demised premises has become unfit and unsafe Civil Revision No. 5280 of 2010 2 for human habitation. Both the Courts below ordered eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for a period of more than four moths. The other two grounds were not accepted. A plea was raised by the tenant that in an earlier round of litigation, the similar plea was also not entertained by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, in his judgment dated 16.11.1993 and the appeal against that was dismissed on 6.1.1997. The Rent Controller took notice of this contention, advanced by the tenant but held that he was not occupying the demised premises from 20.9.1994 till 18.5.2005, when the eviction petition was filed. The Rent Controller further relied upon the testimony of two witnesses namely AW.3 Suraj Aggarwal and AW.5 Ram Parkash to hold that the shop was lying closed. He further took note of the electricity bills Ex.AW.4/1 to Ex.AW.4/3, which were proved by AW.4 Ashok Kumar, from the Electricity Department, to hold that the electricity meter was disconnected on 20.9.1994. Therefore, the Rent Controller held that the respondent/landlord has been able to prove that the petitioner/tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for a period of more than four months. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal. Before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to say that indeed for the period, regarding which a finding has been given by the Rent Controller, he had not occupied the shop due to family disturbance and the fact that he was taking medical treatment. This ground, pleaded in the said application, was taken into Civil Revision No. 5280 of 2010 3 consideration by the Appellate Authority to corroborate the evidence led by the tenant. A concurrent finding of fact has been given by both the Courts below. On perusal of the evidence, the view formulated by both the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 23, 2010 “DK”