SHAM LAL Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , against the petitioner for his eviction from the shop in dispute on two grounds. For the purpose of the present Revision Petition, the material ground t that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the shop in question without reasonable cause for more than seven months. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence of the parties, was not convinced of the ground of eviction and hence dismissed the ejectment application. The landlord, however, went up in appeal and met with success there. The Appellate Authority, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and directed the petitioner to put the landlord in possession of the shop it dispute, though he was allowed two months time to vacate.

(2.) With the aid of the learned counsel for the parties, I have goes through the evidence produced by both the parties in the ejectment proceedings. There is no gainsaying that the Appellate Authority has fallen in error in misreading the evidence of Sham Lal petitioner to the extent that he had explained that he was running cloth business in the shop, though this was never his case. On account of this error, the learned round for the petitioner has sought to urge that the decision of the Appellate Authority should be set aside. I am afraid, this is not the correct approach to the matter. Even if the Appellate Authority has committed an error in misreading certain part of the evidence, he has applied his mind to the various other aspects of the case and has cone to the conclusion that the tenant was liable to be evicted. The Appellate Authority has scrutinised the evidence of the witnesses produced by both the parties and has relied upon those produced by the landlord who was one in asserting that the tenant had failed to occupy the premises for the last 1-1/2 to 2 years from the date when their statements were recorded. One of that witnesses is Karam Chand (A. W. 2) who is Postman, who categorically stated that on his daily beats in the locality where the disputed shop is situated, he had found the shop of the petitioner always closed for several months, which is indeed a clincher. As against this, the shaky evidence produced by the witnesses of the petitioner was rightly rejected. The Appellate Authority also derived support for its above conclusion by reference to the report of the Local Commissioner who visited the spot and after getting the shop opened, found that there was no article or material in the shop which could corroborate the assertion of the tenant that he was running a shop of shoes and chappals. On the other hand, a general inspection of the shop revealed that it appeared not to have been opened for a very very long time. In view of these circumstances, the Appellate Authority was justified in ordering the eviction of the petitioner and I see no reason to differ from this conclusion.

(3.) The Revision Petition is consequently dismissed. The petitioner has naturally to arrange for another premises for his business, if he has to run it. For this purpose, he is allowed four months time to vacate the disputed shop and hand over its possession to the landlord This will, as agreed on behalf of the landlord, be subject to the petitioner paying all the arrears of rent within two weeks from today. In case these arrears are not paid, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any concession of time for vacating of shop.