KADEEJA BEEVI Vs. ABUBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants in a Rent Control Proceedings are the petitioners. The order of eviction passed against them is challenged in this Original Petition. The husband of the first petitioner N. Shahul Hameed was the tenant of a shop room belonging to the first respondent, landlord. The first respondent filed R. C. P. No. 8/82 before the Rent Control Court, Quilon. The petition for eviction was filed under S.11(2)(b) on the ground of arrears of rent, and 11(3) for bona fide own occupation and S.11(4)(V) on the ground that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. The tenant, N. Shahul Hameed resisted the application by raising several contentions. The Rent Control Court rejected the prayer for eviction sought under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. However the landlord's claim under S.11(4)(V) was allowed and the tenant was directed to put the landlord in possession of the building. The tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority found no reason to interfere with the eviction allowed under S.11(4)(V) The tenants thereafter filed revision before the District Judge Quilon. That revision also ended in dismissal. The petitioners who are the legal heirs of the tenant challenge the orders passed in these Rent Control proceedings.

(2.) I heard the petitioners counsel and the counsel for the first respondent. The counsel for the petitioners made reference to a line of authorities to contend that in order to get eviction under S.11(4)(V), the landlord must prove that for the entire period of six months the tenant ceased to occupy the building without any reasonable cause and the evidence in this case failed to establish these statutory requirements. The nature of the evidence adduced by the landlord was that a notice was issued to the tenant prior to the filing of the Rent Control Petition. The postman could not successfully serve the notice to the tenant. The endorsement made by the postman was to the effect that the addressee was absent and the postman attempted to serve the notice to the petitioner on three occasions Thereafter the Rent Control Petition was filed and the notice in the Rent Control Proceedings was taken to the tenant but the tenant was found absent in the business premises. It was served at a place far away from the petition scheduled building. The postman was examined as PW 2. He deposed that he bad gone to deliver the postal cover to the tenant on 29-11-1980 and 6-12-1980 and on these occasions the shop remained closed. He also deposed that he had gone to the shop on 17-11-1981 and 25-11-1981. On these two days he found that the addressee left station and the present address was not known. The Rent Controller acted on the evidence of PW 2. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the evidence of PW 2 coupled with endorsement made on the postal cover would duly show that the tenant was absent in the business premises on all those occasions and that this does not prove that the tenant ceased to occupy the business premises continuously for a period of six months. This being an Original Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution a reappraisal of the evidence is not within the scope of this proceeding.

(3.) Under S.114 of the Evidence Act, the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustration (d) of S.114 further says that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exist is still in existence. The Supreme Court had occasion to observe that the presumption could be drawn in respect of state of things both forward and backward. In the nature of the evidence adduced by the landlord the Court presumed that the tenant would not have been in occupation of the building during the relevant period, and on that basis found that the tenant ceased to occupy continuously for a period of six months without any reasonable cause. It is true that it is not sufficient to show that the tenant was not in the business premises on one or two occasions and the fact that letter addressed could not be served need not inevitably lead to a presumption that he ceased to occupy the building. In order to get eviction under S.11(4)(V) there must be satisfactory evidence to show that the tenant ceased to occupy the building for the statutory period without any reasonable cause. I notice that the tenant had no case that the postman gave false evidence or he had any motive to make any false endorsement in the postal cover. There was also the evidence of the landlord to the effect that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of six months without any reasonable cause. The Court accepted the contention that the tenant was doing business elsewhere and he was keeping the petition scheduled room in a closed condition.