GURBUX SINGH Vs. SUBEDAR SARWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1251 of 1992 as well as C. O. C. P. No. 785 of 1992. Civil Revision has been preferred by the tenant against the order of ejectment passed by the Authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The contempt petition has been filed by the landlord on the allegation that the landlord took possession on 24. 4. 1992 pursuant to the order of ejectment and this Court, on 7. 5. 1992, while admitting the revision petition, had directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession, but the tenant on the night intervening 11/12-5-1992 took forcible possession.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the premises in dispute were let out to the petitioner for running of ice-cream and ice-factory. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground, that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 continuously for a period of four months immediately preceding the presentation of the ejectment application, and also on the ground that the tenant has caused damage to the premises by its misuse. The tenant denied the averments made in the ejectment application and stated that he has not ceased to occupy the premises, but is in occupation of the same and using it without any interruption. As regards the ground of misuse, the tenant stated that the allegations of the landlord are vague. He, however, denied to have caused any damage or misused the premises. The Rent Controller on the appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the parties, ordered ejectment of the tenant, Aggrieved of the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority, who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal. Tenant has now come in revision to this Court.

(3.) IN reply, counsel for the landlord, contended that both the Authorities on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, have returned a finding that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of four months, and this Court in revisional jurisdiction, should not re-appreciate the evidence.