RAMESH CHAND Vs. DAVKI DEVI @ DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Ramesh Chand, tenant, against the order dated 6.4.1981, passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal, filed by the landlady, was accepted, the order, passed by the Rent Controller, was set aside and the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant.

(2.) SMT . Devki Devi @ Devi (landlady) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against Ramesh Chand, tenant, inter alia on the ground that Ramesh Chand was a tenant on the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and was liable to be ejected from the said shop on the ground of non-payment of rent, change of user and that the shop in question was lying closed for a continuous period of four months, which had diminished the value and utility of the shop in question. In the written statement, filed by Ramesh Chand, tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant, between the parties was admitted, but it was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 60/- and not Rs. 100/-, as claimed by the landlady. It was further alleged that he had already paid the rent upto 31.7.1977 and that in order to avoid eviction, he had paid the rent upto 28.2.1978 along with interest. It was denied that the shop in question remained closed for a continuous period of four months before the filing of the petition. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition of the landlady, holding that the rate of rent was Rs. 60/- per month and that the tenant was not liable to be ejected from the said shop, on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was also held that the tenant was not liable to be ejected from the said shop on the ground that he ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of more than four months, without reasonable cause, at the time of filing of the petition. However, the appeal, filed by the landlady, was accepted by the learned appellate authority, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and order of ejectment was passed against the tenant, on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop is question for a continuous period of four months, prior to the filing of the petition, without sufficient cause. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondent-landlady and have gone through the record carefully.