SEWA SINGH, LANDLORD Vs. AGYA SINGH, TENANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eviction application filed by the landlord-petitioner was dismissed by the Rent Controller. His appeal also did not succeed. The present revision has been directed against the order of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The ejectment had been sought on a number of grounds. None of which found favour with both the Courts below. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only one ground, that is, the shop in question remained closed for more than four months before filing of the eviction application. According to an averment in the petition the shop remained closed for one year and half till the filing of the petition on October 4, 1974. Regarding this contention both oral and documentary evidence was adduced on both sides. The petitioner, besides his own statement, produced two witnesses who were admittedly his relations. As against this a number of witnesses who were either neighbours of the demised premises or were carrying on business nearby were produced by the tenant. Both the Courts below did not place reliance on the oral evidence produced by the landlord and found evidence of the tenant as convincing and cogent. Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, has laid much emphasis on two Meter Reading Cards Exhibits A. 6 and A. 7 and also the statement of Rajinder Kumar (A. W. 3), Bill Clerk in support of his contention. According to his deposition there was no consumption of electricity on the commercial connection of the premises in dispute from 30.11.1970 onwards. This is corroborated from the meter reading card A. 6. However, it was admitted by him in cross-examination that there was another connection at the demised premises namely heating commercial connection which showed consumption of electricity throughout. According to the learned counsel this part of the statement of the witness was as a result of some confusion or misunderstanding. This contention cannot be agreed. I have closely pursued his statement. The same does not admit of any confusion or vagueness. In any case the petitioner had ample opportunity to seek any clarification from the witnesses in re-examination. But nothing of the kind was done. Thus, the only conclusion which can be drawn, from A. 7 and the statement of Rajinder Kumar (A. W. 3) is that though no electricity was consumed from one connection but there was consumption of electricity on another connection installed in the shop in question.

(3.) It was then contended that it was clear from the statement of the tenant Agya Singh (R. W. 10) that previously he was carrying on the business of sale of sodawater but the same was discontinued. Its perusal makes it evident that the tenant was carrying on not only this business but also the business of selling fish and tea. As the sodawater business began to run at a loss, the same was discontinued but the business relating to the other two items was continued. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the tenant to the effect that the shop had been closed because of the discontinuance of the business of sodawater.