SURAT CHANDER OBEROI Vs. DARSHAN SINGH SOKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under sub-Section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') challenge the judgment dated 28.1.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, whereby the tenant-petitioner has been ordered to be ejected from the demised premises and a period of three months from the date of order i.e. 28.1.1985 had been granted. The Ld. appellate Authority reversed the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 21.4.1984 on the important issue as to whether the tenant-petitioner has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for a continuous period of about three years.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the Act on 24.3.1983 seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the grounds of non- payment of rent, failure of the tenant-petitioner to occupy the shop for a continuous period of about three years and that the shop had become unfit and unsafe for human inhabitation. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

(3.) ON Issue No. 2, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller is that the landlord-respondent has not produced adequate evidence to show that the shop in dispute has not been occupied by the tenant-petitioner for a continuous period of three years. The statements of the witnesses produced by the landlord-respondent like AW 2 Jagjit Pal Singh, Sarpanch of village Khunda and AW 3 Harbhajan Singh, Lambardar of the same village have been discarded on the ground that village Khunda is at a short distance of 2-3 kms. from Dhariwal and it must be believed that the tenant-petitioner was running his medical practice at Dhariwal in the shop in the dispute as well as at village Khunda. Another reason given by the Rent Controller was that since AW 2 Jagjit Pal Singh and AW 3 Harbhajan Singh belonging to village Khunda have not ever visited the tenant-petitioner for consultation, it was not possible to believe their statement that he was doing medical practice at Khunda throughout the day. The Rent Controller believed that the tenant-petitioner must be running his medical practice for some period at village Khunda also in order to supplement his income. Even the statement of Tarsem Singh from the Electricity Board has been discarded by the Rent Controller on the ground that the landlord-respondent was not able to prove that the meter with connection No. S 598 was in the name of Vijay Kumar son of Rattan Chand who happens to be the brother of the tenant-petitioner is infact installed in the shop in dispute.