AMAR SINGH Vs. RAM RAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by a tenant whose ejectment has been ordered both by the Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Controller.

(2.) THE main ground of ejectment, with which we are concerned in this petition, is that the shop in dispute, which has been given on rent, was closed for the last 17 months and, consequently, the tenant was liable to ejectment under Section 13 (2) (v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, hereinafter called the Act, which says: (2) "a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied-x x x x x x (v) that where the building is situated in a place other than a hill station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application: ".

(3.) THE tenant's position was that he was a carpenter and had throughout been using the shop for doing his work. This plea, after appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties, was rejected both by the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority. In this revision petition a new ground for the first time has been taken that the tenant is not liable to ejectment, because even if he was not using the shop for his carpentry work, he would still be deemed to be in its occupation, as he had put a lock thereon after some of his articles were placed therein. As I have said, this was not his case either in the written statement or when the evidence was being recorded or before the Rent Controller or even before the Appellate Authority.