RAM SARAN DASS Vs. YOG RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') filed by the landlord challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-respondent has been able to establish that the demised premises did not remain unoccupied continuously from 1.2.1984 to 30.7.1984 without a reasonable cause. On that basis it was concluded that the tenant-respondent was not liable to be evicted under Section 13(2)(v) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the landlord-petitioner filed Rent Application No. 34-2 of 24.7.1984, seeking ejectment of the tenant-respondent. The landlord-petitioner claimed that the demised premises were rented out to one Des Raj who is the father of respondents 1, 6 and 7 and grand-father of respondents 2 to 5. It was alleged that the respondents ceased to occupy the demised premises without sufficient cause since February, 1984 as the shop was lying locked from 1.2.1984 till the filing of the ejectment petition on 24.7.1984. It was further alleged that Yog Raj tenant-respondent 1 had left Ferozepur on 2.2.1984 and the tenant-respondents had failed to pay rent from April, 1984 to June, 1984 till 15.4.1984. It was claimed that till April, 1984, tenant-respondent Rajinder Kumar was carrying on his business in Toori Bazar Ferozepur. The allegation with regard to ceasing to occupy the demised premises without sufficient cause and the allegation that the demised premises are lying closed since 1.2.1984, were controverted. It was also denied that tenant-respondent 1 Yog Raj had left Ferozepur on 2.2.1984. It was further asserted that tenant-respondent 1 was to pay amount of hypothecated limit executed in favour of the State Bank of Patiala and on account of default in payment, the Bank had locked the premises on 15.4.1984 in order to recover the amount. The premises remained locked from 16.4.1984 to 29.6.1984. When the shop was opened at the instance of tenant-respondent 1, on 29.6.1984 and 3.7.1984, goods amounting to Rupees 2,347/- and Rupees 700/- were sold. On 28.7.1984, Rupees 15,000/- were deposited in the Bank and again on 30.7.1984 Rupees 3,834/- were deposited after the sale of goods lying in the demised shop. The balance amount of Rupees 12,620.89 was deposited by Rajinder Kumar in the account of the firm M/s. Lakhpat Rai Des Raj to obtain the keys of the shop. The business on the shop is now being run by Rajinder Kumar under the name and style of M/s. Chawla Trading Company. It was also alleged that after about a month; he joined his mother as partner who is respondent No. 8 in the instant petition.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority has accepted the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and has recorded the following findings :-