YOGESH MITTAL Vs. ABHEY RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the respondent on the ground that the demised premises was lying locked since January 2005. The Rent Controller vide order dated 13.6.2012 ordered the ejectment of the respondent However, in appeal the Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 22.5.2013 and dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner -landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority had erred in dismissing the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner. In fact, it was proved on record that the shop in question was lying closed from March 2005 to January 2006.

(2.) IN the present case, the ejectment of the respondent was sought by the petitioner on the ground that the shop in question was lying locked. Respondent took up the plea that the shop was lying closed on account of his illness. It has been noticed by the learned Appellate Authority that in the replication filed by the petitioner, it had been stated that the tenant remains ill and does not open the shop. In these circumstances, the learned Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that in the facts of the present case, it could not be said that the shop in question had been lying closed without any reasonable cause.