Civil Revision No. 2174 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2174 of 2009 Date of decision : 15.3.2010 Harjeet Singh Bedi ....Petitioner Versus Ishwar Devi and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Y.P.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the respondents S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner herein is in revision against the order dated 14.1.2009 vide which the learned Appellate Authority upheld the order dated 3.4.2008, granted by the learned Rent Controller, allowing a petition filed by the respondent-landlord and directing the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on a finding that the latter had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for the last about one year. The controversy presently is only qua that finding. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant, argued that the approach of the learned Appellate Authority in recording the finding under challenge is wholly erroneous in view of the fact that it draws essential sustenance from the fact that the electricity supply to the premises had ceased to be available about a year ago. While averring that it was the respondent-landlord who Civil Revision No. 2174 of 2009 -2- had connived with the electricity authorities to get the electric supply to the tenanted premises disconnected, it was argued that the mere proven fact of non consumption of electricity during the period aforementioned is, by itself, not sufficient to hold that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises aforementioned. In support of the advocated contention, reliance was placed upon Sohan Lal and another Vs. Gurbachan Singh 1989(2) The Punjab Law Reporter 478 and Geenta Bhalla and others Vs. Krishan Kumar (dead) through Lrs. 2006(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 379. The plea, raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant is denuded of force and the judicial pronouncements relied upon are inapplicable to the case before this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. The reasons therefor are as under:- In Sohan Lal's case (supra). the Court found as a fact that the averment with regard to the ceasure on the part of the tenant to occupy the shop was based upon a vague allegation inasmuch as no specific period therefor had been indicated. There was no statement by the Meter Reader that he found the shop closed. There was no consensus between the landlord and tenant interse in that case that no electricity had been consumed during the period under challenge. As against it, the fact of non consumption of electricity is a conceded fact in the present case and the only allegation made by the petitioner-tenant is that it was the landlord, who got the electricity supply to the tenanted premises disconnected. In the above quoted case, there was no such Civil Revision No. 2174 of 2009 -3- commonness on the factual scenerio. In Geeta Bhalla's case (supra), too, an adverse inference against the tenant had been drawn in view of the non production of the electricity bills and the account books. In that case, the tenant was found to be a petty shop keeper and it was in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of that case that a Single Bench of this Court held that mere non consumption of electricity itself was not sufficient to hold that the tenant had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises under reference. In the present case, the Appellate Authority very appropriately noticed the tenor of pleadings of the parties. In the course of para 11 of the judgment under challenge , it noticed the following averment made in the course of the petition:- “4. That the shop in question is lying closed for the last about two years. The electricity connection installed in the shop in question has also been disconnected for the last more than one year for non payment of electricity bills. The photographs showing that the shop in question is lying closed, the neighbouring shopkeeper's cycles/waste etc. dumped are enclosed herewith. Thus the respondent has ceased to occupy the shop in question for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. During this period the respondent has not opened the shop in question nor he did his business in the shop in question.” Further, it also noticed the corresponding resistance Civil Revision No. 2174 of 2009 -4- offered to para in the written statement, which is extracted hereunder:- “ Para no.4 of the petition is correct to the extent that the electric connection of the shop in question has been got disconnected by the petitioner with mala fide intention just to harass the respondent and to seek his eviction from the shop in question, in spite of the fact that the respondent paid the charges upto date. Rest of the contents of this para of the petition are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the shop in question is lying closed. It is wrong and denied that the respondent has ceased to occupy the shop for the last four months continuously rather the respondent is running the shop and earns his livelihood.” It was in view of the tenor of the pleadings that the learned Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the tenant had not disputed that “the electricity connection of the demised shop has been disconnected for the last about 2 years as alleged by the petitioner”. In the context of the averment made by the tenant (to the effect that it was the landlord who had got the electricity connection disconnected), the learned Appellate Authority noticed the terms and conditions of the rent note Ex. PW2/B which categorically indicated that the electricity charges were required to be paid by the tenant himself. In this case, petitioner/tenant had conceded the factum of execution of the impugned rent note. When the respondent-landlord stepped into witness box, as his own witness, Civil Revision No. 2174 of 2009 -5- as PW-2, a suggestion was put to him that he did not accept the rent and electricity charges (from the tenant). That suggestion was utilised by the learned Appellate Authority to draw an inference against the petitioner-tenant in view of the proven contents of the rent note which imposed a liability upon the petitioner-tenant to pay electricity charges directly to the P.S.E.B. In obtaining that finding, the learned Appellate Authority also drew sustenance from the substantive testimony of PW-4 Rajinder Pal Singh, photographer, who proved photographes Ex. PW4/1 to Ex. PW4/13 which (photographs) were supportive of the fact of closure of the shop. It is in testimony of photographer aforementioned that he had taken nine photographs on 28.12.2002; while he had taken other four photographs on 10.5.2003. He also proved negatives Ex. PW4/14 to Ex. PW4/26 and the relevant bill Ex. PW4/27 dated 28.12.2002. It would also be pertinent to notice here that petitioner-tenants had, while denying non functional aspect of the tenanted premises, averred that they have been throughout running Tent House business in those premises and there also was a cable connection and ceiling fan installed therein. It was also the plea that four migrant labourers had been engaged in the business aforementioned. Those averred four migrant labourers/workers were not examined at the trial. No documentation to prove the obtaining/running of a cable connection in the premises was adduced. The ceiling fan averred to have been installed in the tenanted premises could not have been run in the absence of electricity connection. In the totality of the circumstances of the case Civil Revision No. 2174 of 2009 -6- , the learned Appellate Authority was fully justified in holding that it was inconceivable to expect that averred business could have been run in the tenanted premises without consumption of electricity. The findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority which (findings) are, in turn, supportive of view obtained by the learned Rent Controller, are well reasoned and do not call for any interference. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 15, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE