SHER CHAND Vs. SURAJ PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision against whom eviction orders have been passed by the Authorities below that he ceased to occupy premises in dispute for a continuous period of four months without any reasonable cause. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the demised premises from June, 1976 till the filing of the petition without any reasonable cause. Ejectment was also sought on the ground that because of the long closure of the property the value and utility has been materially impaired; the building was also stated to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Rent Controller found that tenant left for Dubai in the month of June, 1976 and thereafter he ceased to occupy the shop in dispute till the filing of the petition. However, the Rent Controller found that the father of the tenant, namely, Sadan Ram continued to do the business in the premises but occupation of the father of the tenant was held to be of no consequence. Tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, who not only found that the tenant ceased to occupy the shop in dispute as he had left for Dubai in June, 1976 but also continued to stay in Dubai, but held that the father of tenant was also not occupying the premises. The finding of the Rent Controller with regard to occupation of the shop by the father was, therefore, set aside. Tenant has preferred the present civil revision challenging the orders of the Authorities below.

(2.) MR . R.C. Setia, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no convincing evidence on the record to prove that the father is not carrying on the business in the premises in dispute. He, however, admits that the tenant did leave for Dubai in June, 1976 and continues to live in Dubai.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this civil revision deserves to fail.