BABU RAM GOPAL Vs. MATHRA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by a tenant defendant is directed against the decree for his eviction from a shop on the ground mentioned in S. 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which renders the tenant liable for eviction if he has ceased to occupy the rented premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. The questions which are involved in this case are whether a tenant can be said to have ceased to occupy a building merely for the reason that he temporarily suspends tire actual physical user thereof, and whether a landlord is entitled to a decree even if the tenant has re-occupied the premises before the eviction proceeding was commenced.

(2.) The landlord-respondent filed the present application for eviction of the appellant before the rent controller in March, 1973 and inter alia pleaded that for a continuous period of more than four months the appellant had ceased to occupy the shop during 1969 to 1971 and he was, therefore, liable to be ejected. The appellant disputed the allegation, but, the rent controller as well as the Appellate Authority rejected the defence and accepted the plaintiffs plea. After unsuccessfully moving the High Court under S. 15(5) of the Act, the tenant had filed the present appeal by special leave.

(3.) The grounds on which a tenant can be asked to quit are mentioned under S. 13(2) of the Act, and under clause (v) thereof the controller may pass an order for the tenant's eviction if he is satisfied,