NAVAL KISHORE Vs. PADMA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of ejectment passed against him on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the premises without sufficient cause for a period of more than four months and changed the user i.e. premises from tea stall to Steel furniture.

(2.) ON the basis of rent note Ex. AW.6/2 dated 14.1.1977, the petitioner was inducted as tenant at the rent of Rs. 75/- per month. However, the landlord filed an ejectment petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent and has changed the user of the premises from business of tea stall to that of Steel furniture in the name and style of M/s Naval Sales Corporation and also ceased to occupy the premises since 18.1.1983 for a period of more than four months. It may be stated that the landlord produced number of witnesses to prove the ground of ejectment. However, the counsel for the tenant pleaded that he had no instructions during the course of trial. The tenant had not led any evidence and consequently, the Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence of the landlord passed an order of ejectment. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority. It was found that the counsel for the petitioner has pleaded no instructions on 2.3.1987 but the case was adjourned on subsequent dates but still at no stage tenant appeared before the Court so as to participate in the proceedings.

(3.) STILL further, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that mere fact that the premises any lying locked is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises. He relied upon the judgment in Harjit Singh v. Harbans Lal, 1991 HRR 348 : 1991(2) RCR(Rent) 210 (P&H) for the said proposition. However, the said contention is again not tenable. It is a question of fact in each case whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. It has been found that the premises are lying locked without consumption of electricity and there is no evidence that the petitioner has any cause of keeping the premises locked continuously for a period of more than four months. In the case of Harjit Singh (supra) cited by the counsel for the petitioner the fact was that the tenant had gone abroad. In such circumstances, it was held there was no evidence that the tenant had any animus revertendi.