NIRMAL SINGH Vs. MOHD. BASHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging order dated 24.1.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sangrur. The ejectment of the tenant-petitioner has been ordered on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the demised shop four months preceding the date of filing of the ejectment petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the instant petition are that the tenant-petitioner was inducted in the demised shop as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 300/- p.m. on 1.5.1995. According to the averments made in the ejectment petition he had paid the rent at the rate of 200/- p.m. for three months and thereafter he defaulted in making the payment of rent which is a ground of ejectment under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. It has been further alleged that he in fact has closed the shop which resulted into furnishing of another ground of ejectment as contemplated by Section 13(2)(v) of the Act. The allegation is that the tenant-petitioner had ceased to occupy the demised shop for four months without any reasonable cause preceding the date of filing of the ejectment petition. The Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the landlord-respondent. However, the findings recorded by the Rent Controller were reversed by the Appellate Authority by accepting the appeal of the landlord-respondent. On the issue of rate of rent, the Appellate Authority, Sangrur has placed reliance on the assessment register of the Municipal Committee and the oral statements of the landlord-respondent as well as other witnesses. The findings of the Appellate Authority on the aforementioned issues read as under :-

(3.) ON the other issue that the tenant-petitioner has failed to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than four months without a reasonable cause, the Appellate Authority has placed reliance on the statement made by Bashir Ahmed AW-1 and Mohd. Jamil AW-2. AW-2 Mohd. Jamil is working in the vicinity close to the demised shop. Even there is no consumption of electricity shown or proved. The version of the tenant-petitioner that he has taken electricity from the shop of Baldev Singh has not been accepted as Baldev Singh has not deposed to that effect when he appeared as RW-2. The tenant-petitioner has failed to prove by producing any invoices showing business transactions during the alleged period. The aforementioned view of the Appellate Authority is discernible from paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment which read as under :-