LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-142

BALRAJ BHANDARI Vs. MUNI LAL SUDHWANT RAI

Decided On May 29, 2003
Balraj Bhandari Appellant
V/S
Muni Lal Sudhwant Rai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The facts to be noticed read as under :-

(2.) ONE Mool Chand Bhandari was the owner of the demised premises and the same had been let out to the respondent-tenants in the year 1952 for the purpose of carrying on Ahrat business (Commission Agent) at a monthly tenancy of Rs. 37.50. The owner died on 28.5.1972. Petitioners No. 1 to 5 being the legal heirs, claimed the ownership of the demised premises as natural successors by operation of law and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The afore-stated petition had been filed by the petitioners for seeking ejectment of the respondents on the following grounds :-

(3.) BEING dissatisfied the appeal had been filed before the Appellate Authority. It has been observed by the Appellate Authority that the respondents conceded the finding on issue No. 1 i.e. regarding relationship of landlord and tenant as the said finding of learned Rent Controller has not been challenged by the respondents. Thus, the only question which remained to be determined before the Appellate Authority was: whether the respondent- tenants have ceased to occupy the demised premises for a period of four months before the filing of the petition ? In support of the argument, reliance has been placed upon a document exhibited as Ex. A7, whereby, the change of place of business is stated to have taken place with effect from 14.4.1977. This document is of no consequence as the petition is stated to have been filed on June 2, 1977, whereas, the date described in the afore-stated document is 14.4.1977. A number of documents have been placed on record but the thrust is only to the effect that the respondent-tenants have not done any Ahrat business in the shop, i.e. demised premises since 1976. However, the registration certificate has been produced and has been exhibited as Ex. R1, which spells out that apart from the activity of Ahrat business, there is some other business such as sale of Gur, Bardana, Khal, coconut, drums, tyres, Soda, Cotton, Oil seeds, machinery spare parts, electric goods and timber etc. which was also being carried on in the demised premises. Another plea has been set out in support of the aforesaid argument that no electricity had been consumed in the demised premises with effect from December 1976 to September 1977. A letter Ex. A6 and bills Ex. A8 to Ex. A12, have been produced. It has been argued before the Appellate Authority that by virtue of the documents and the evidence brought on record, it has been proved that the respondents are carrying on some other business under the name and style of M/s Amar Ginning and Oil Mills at some other premises, which are almost opposite the demised premises. However, Sukhwant Rai respondent has appeared as RW1 and has categorically stated that he attends to the business in the shop i.e. the demised premises as well as the business of the afore-stated mill. It is obvious that it has not been denied that the respondents are carrying on some other business as well but this would not prove that the business is not being carried on in the demised premises and that they have ceased to occupy the same. It has also been clarified that so far as consumption of electricity is concerned, the shop remains open during the day time and that no electricity was required to be used but this would not mean that the shop remains closed. The petitioners have not produced the Meter Reader from PSEB alleged to be visiting the demised premises for noting the meter reading. The person who has been produced is of no consequence as he has not been able to spell out as to when he had come to note the meter reading and when he did not, as such, the Rent Controller has not placed reliance upon his testimony.