Civil Revision No.1970 of 1996 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1970 of 1996 Date of Decision: January 16, 2008 Darshan Lal ...Petitioner VERSUS Rajinder Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.Rajesh Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition impugning the order of the Appellate Court directing his ejectment from the demises premises. The Rent Controller had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord seeking ejectment of the petitioner. The landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner from Civil Revision No.1970 of 1996 : 2 : House No.4990, Mohalla Gopal Sahai, Ambala Cantt on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the same and it was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The plea of sub-letting and regarding carrying out additions and alterations without the consent of the landlord leading to impairment of its value and utility were also made. The case set up is that this house was let out to deceased Des Raj predecessor-in-interest of Darshan Lal, Tilak Raj, Chunni Lal and Pishori Lal. His wife Ram Rakhi was residing with Des Raj. Darshan Lal is employed at Jalandhar and is presently settled there. Tilak Raj is statedly employed at Chandigarh and is settled there. When Des Raj died in the month of February, 1984, Darshan Lal his son locked the premises in dispute and went to stay with his sons. Thus, the demised premises remained un-occupied without sufficient cause from the month of February, 1984 till the date of filing the petition, i.e., 6.9.1986. It is on this count pleaded that the condition of the house has deteriorated and it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It is pleaded that the roof of kitchen has fallen, walls have developed cracks and would require re- construction. Allegation of sub-letting the premises in question to Pishori Lal and Chuni Lal sons of Dewan Chand is also made, which is without any written consent from the landlord. It is further pleaded that sub-tenants have removed the roof of the kitchen and portion of the wall and so also the windows and doors. Thus, the value of the property has been impaired. It is seen that respondent No.1 is the main contesting respondent and has filed written statement controverting the averments made by the appellant. Other respondents were Civil Revision No.1970 of 1996 : 3 : proceeding against ex-parte as they did not appear despite service. It is pleaded by the contested respondent that she never left the house un-occupied and has not locked the same. The averment in regard to the kitchen roof having fallen and that she having shifted to Jalandhar and further that the walls have developed cracks also denied. Accordingly, it is denied that the house has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Allegation of sub-letting is also denied and so also the averment in regard to the addition and alteration as pointed out above. Having regard to respective stands of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1)Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent? OPP. 2) Whether the respondents ceased to occupy the premises without sufficient cause from Feb., 1984, till filing of the petition? OPP. 3) Whether the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation? OPP. 4) Whether the respondent No.1 to 3 have sublet the premises to respondents No.4 and 5, alleged? OPP. 5) Whether the respondents are liable for eviction on the ground of material addition or alteration? OPP. 6) Relief. The Rent Controller decided issue No.1 in favour of the landlord and issues No.2 to 5 against him and accordingly dismissed the ejectment petition. Appellate Court, however, reversed this finding and directed ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the Civil Revision No.1970 of 1996 : 4 : building and finding of the Rent Controller in this regard was set- aside. Findings on the remaining issues, however, were up held. This is under challenge in the present revision petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the finding by the Appellate Court that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the premises is based on a solitary account given by PW-4 and the same cannot be implicitly relied. PW-4 is a Sweeper employed by the Government and was detailed to perform duties in the streets where the house is located. He was produced before the court and had stated that the house is lying un-occupied. To attack the same, it is pointed out that this statement is against the normal conduct and cannot be believed. The plea of the petitioner is that after the death of Des Raj, family of Darshan Lal started residing at the house and if wife of deceased Des Raj had temporarily gone out for some time, it would not mean that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the house in question. In support of his submission, the counsel has also relied on certain judgments. The court found that the evidence given by PW-4 cannot be easily brushed aside. It is noticed that he is the public servant and was an independent witness, who was not to gain anything in this case. He was also found to be a natural witness, who would have an occasion and a chance to be present in the street and notice which house is lying locked or un-occupied etc. The evidence is that the house had remained un-occupied for two years. PW-4 was a regular visitor to the street to perform his duties and statedly had found the house locked. He, as such, has supported the evidence of PW-5 that the house in question had remained locked for about two years. It Civil Revision No.1970 of 1996 : 5 : would be important to notice that Darshan Lal entered into the witness box as RW-1 and made a statement to say that he remained in possession of the house. However, unguardedly he conceded that the house temporarily used to close when he happened to go to his elder brother. RW-1 Darshan Lal was thus found contradicting his own statement. He was questioned while under cross-examination that where was the need to lock the house if he was occupying the same alongwith his family. He could have easily gone to see or visit his brother by leaving the house open. He was unable to explain this contradiction. He otherwise also conceded that he was in service at Chandigarh and had retired in February, 1993. He even could not deny that he was in possession of House No.4, Sector 11 Panchkula while he was serving at Chandigarh where he remained for 7-8 years. This witness also admitted to have shifted to house No.972 Sector 11, Panchkula. It was not the case of the witness that he was daily commuter from Ambala to Chandigarh. If that be so, no reasonable man would be able to say that he was occupying this demised premises as he attempting to convey. He was also found to be listed as a voter in voter list of Panchkula. He could not show any document or produced electricity bill or a ration card, which would indicate that he was residing at Ambala. It was very easy for him or the petitioner to establish his residence at Ambala by showing any of the documents, like electricity bill, voter list, ration card or the details of admission of their children, who might be studying in a school or a college. Once the petitioner failed to show any of such documents, it would be reasonable to infer that the evidence of the witness that he was occupying the house is only a made up one and given just to Civil Revision No.1970 of 1996 : 6 : justify the stand of the petitioner. Once the best available evidence has not been produced before the court, even adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner that such evidence if produced would have gone against him. During the course of argument, the counsel seriously attacked the version given by the solitary witness in support of stand of the respondent-landlord. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent confronted him with the fact that he could not prove or establish anything from the record or documents that he was residing at Ambala. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to certain judgments, which, in my considered opinion, would not come to his rescue. All these cases which were also referred before the Appellate Court were such where absence was temporary and the absentee had reasonable cause for the absence. Accordingly, they would not apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision. I up-hold the judgment of the Appellate Court. The respondent-landlord has succeeded in proving that the petitioner ceased to occupy the house and as such is required to be ejected. The revision is accordingly dismissed with costs. The respondents are entitled to get the possession of the demised premises. January 16, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE