AJIT SINGH Vs. RAM LILA SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision against order of the learned Appellate Authority by which order of the learned Rent Controller has been reversed and the petition filed by the landlord for his eviction has been allowed. In short, the tenant is in possession of a single storey shop along with the land behind two shops situated at Railway Road, Karnal on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/- besides house tax. The landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent from 01.06.1984 to 31.05.1985 amounting to Rs. 780/- and house tax amounting to Rs. 98/- and that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises from 01.11.1984 till 31.05.1984 for a continuous period of seven months without reasonable cause.

(2.) After appearance, the tenant tendered the rent in Court. In the written statement, he has denied that he has ever ceased to occupy the demised premises rather it was alleged that he was in the business of scooter repair from the date the shop was taken on rent. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues on 13.03.1986. Both the parties led their evidence; the landlord had filed an application for amendment of the eviction petition to allege that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises till the filing of the eviction petition but the said application was dismissed. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition solely on the ground that the landlord has averred in its petition that the shop remained closed only upto 31.05.1985 which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Babu Ram Gopal v. Matu, 1990 AIR(SC) 879 in which it was observed that the landlord must allege and prove the closure of the demised premises on the date of filing of the eviction petition.

(3.) Aggrieved against the order of the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed the statutory appeal. It also filed an application for amendment of the eviction petition to take the plea that the demised premises remained closed continuously upto the date of filing of the eviction petition. The said amendment was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority on 07.12.1990. The tenant had challenged that order by way of CR-75-1991 before this Court in which notice of motion was issued on 09.01.1991 and the proceedings before the Appellate Authority was stayed but ultimately the revision petition was dismissed on 16.04.1991. Meaning thereby, the order of the Appellate Authority by which amendment was granted, was upheld. The learned Appellate Authority allowed the eviction petition by taking into account the oral as well as documentary evidence. In this regard, it has taken into consideration the fact that the tenant was served at the address of Hoshiarpur and the report of service was exhibited as Ex.P4. It was also observed that the issue of his fleeing from Karnal in the wake of riots in November, 1984 because of the death of Smt. Indira Gandhi was never pleaded in the written statement. It was also observed that the tenant had even sent a money order of Rs. 400/- from Hoshiarpur although the office of the landlord was at a distance of 50'-60' yards from the demised premises. The Appellate Authority had also taken into consideration the report of the Meter Reader according to which the demised premises was lying locked. Ultimately, the following finding was recorded by the learned Appellate Authority: