VARINDER KUMAR Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition filed by the tenant, the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are assailed. The petitioner has been ordered to be evicted on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a considerable period of time.

(2.) During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for permission to lead additional evidence in order to produce the invoices from 1/4/2002 to 26/11/2012 and insurance policies from February, 2006 to February, 2015.

(3.) It has come in evidence that the electricity connection of the tenanted premises has been disconnected from the year 2004 whereas the petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed on 6/8/2008. Apart therefrom, there is a report by the postman in the year 2010 that the shop is lying closed for quite some time.