CR No.953 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.953 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:10.02.2011. Madan Lal ...Petitioner Versus Renu Bala ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises, inter alia, on the ground of ceased to occupy. The finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority in this regard is as under: - “19. As regards the fact that the shop is lying unoccupied for the last four months, I find that admittedly, father of the appellant Madan Lal has died in June, 2003. The petitioner has come to the witness box and has deposed on oath that the shop in question remained unoccupied four months prior to the filing of the petition. Then PW2 Ashok Kumar, who is tenant in the adjoining shop, has also stated that the shop in question had not been used by any of the legal heirs for carrying on any commercial activity and is lying closed ever since the death of Sohan Lal. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the statement of PW2 Ashok Kumar, who is tenant in shop No.2 in the same building. Similarly, PW3 Prem Chand has stated on oath that the shop in question is lying locked and has not been used for any commercial activity. PW3 Prem Chand is also a tenant in the same building. This evidence is supported by the electricity bills placed on the record that the shop in question is not used. The bills of electricity are CR No.953 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** of summer month and if the shop would have been opened then at least fan must have run on electricity. The electricity bills support and corroborate the version of the petitioner Renu Bala. No independent witness has been examined by appellant Madan Lal to prove that he was running the shop and the shop is occupied by Madan Lal. RW2 Naresh has stated in the cross-examination that Madan Lal respondent is his first cousin. There is also no other document on the record of any type including account books, income tax record or any receipt etc. to prove that Madan Lal was doing business in the demised premises for the last four months before filing of the petition. If now Madan Lal is working in the shop, it will not have any effect as the court is to see whether the shop remained unoccupied for four months immediately before filing the petition. Therefore, even if now the appellant is working in the shop, it has no effect on the petitioner's case.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] which has been erroneously dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on 02.11.2010 although he wanted to produce on record the receipt of Electricity Department in additional evidence. It is alleged that these were the documentary evidence coming from the custody of the Electricity Department, therefore, the learned Appellate Authority should have allowed the application. It is also urged that he wanted to produce certain other receipts from another jeweller for whom the petitioner was working during that period. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and have gone through the orders of the Courts below including the order passed on his application filed for additional evidence. Insofar as the application for additional evidence is concerned, the receipts of Electricity Department were already within the knowledge of the petitioner as they are pertaining to the year 2003. Even if these receipts are taken into consideration, it hardly improve the case of the petitioner because in receipt Annexure P-8 there is a consumption of only 4 units, whereas in receipt Annexure P-9 there is a CR No.953 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ****** consumption of only 2 units which is not possible if the petitioner has been opening the shop during this period. In any case, the Court is concerned with the period of 4 months prior to the filing of the eviction petition. It is proved on record that the petitioner has not opened his shop during this period and closed it without any reasonable cause. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to disturb the categoric findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. February 10, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE