RAM KISHAN Vs. DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-landlords sought eviction of tenant from a double-storeyed shop on the ground that the tenant had not tendered the rent and house tax with effect from 6.12.1983 as also that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute by causing damage to the "Chabutara" and that he had ceased to occupy the shop in dispute with effect from July 1982. Whereas the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application for eviction, the learned Appellant Authority, on appeal preferred by the landlords, ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that the shop in question was lying closed for the period more than provided under the Statute. This revision has been directed against the order of the Appellant Authority.

(2.) THE only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though it has been found on cogent evidence that the shop in question remained closed from 1982 to 1984 yet inasmuch as the Appellant Authority misread the evidence with regard to sufficient cause for closure of the shop, the judgment rendered by it is required to be upset. It has been argued that even though the son of the tenant appeared in the witness-box and stated that his father had been a patient of hypertension, heard disease and cancer and that he was not cross-examined on that aspect and even it was not suggested to him that he was giving false eviction, his statement ought to have been relied upon as admission by the respondent-landlords. Further, the contention of learned counsel is that the Appellant Authority has misread the written statement filed by the tenant while holding that the plea of sickness was not even taken in the written statement.