JAI BHAGWAN Vs. KRISHAN ABBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the order of eviction directed against the tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 brought at the instance of the landlord on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the property from August 2003 till date when the petition was filed on 16.11.2007. The petition was resisted by the tenant on the ground that the landlord had come with the similar application on an earlier occasion through a rent petition and he has suppressed the said fact and filed the present petition. The Rent Controller, therefore, addressed the issue of whether there had been a proper conduct on the part of the landlord and whether he had come to Court with clean hands. He found that there had been a deliberate suppression and the landlord not having come to Court with clean hands, was not entitled to the relief which he sought. He also found that the landlord had not proved that the property had ceased to be in the possession of the tenant and dismissed the petition. The landlord preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge who reversed the decision and granted the relief of eviction. The issue of whether the earlier proceeding relating to eviction on the same ground operated as res judicata was also addressed by the Judge to hold that it related to different period and the petition for eviction was filed on continuance of cessation to occupy from a period from 1.8.2003 and constituted a different cause of action. The Appellate Court made an issue of the fact that the property did not have even electricity connection and he could not have continued in possession of residential house without any electricity service. It further took note of the fact that the tenant had obtained government accommodation being a government servant and having shifted the property, he had ceased to occupy the premises. The tenant who is ordered to be evicted is before the Revision Court to contend that the Appellate Court failed to address an important issue regarding the conduct of the landlord for not having to come to Court with clean hands as found by the trial Court and there was no finding as regards the same. The counsel would also argue that the previous petition seeking for eviction on the same ground had failed and such decision will constitute res judicata against the landlord from seeking eviction. The counsel would also argue that there are several authorities to the effect that non -payment of electricity charges or disconnection of electricity cannot prove that the property has ceased to occupy by a tenant.

(2.) It is also urged by the tenant that the Appellate Court had found that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premise from August, 2007 and if the petition was admittedly filed only on 17.11.2007, there was not even a four months time as required in the statute for ordering from the date when a tenant had ceased to occupy and therefore, eviction could not have been ordered. The tenant would make reference to the fact that the landlord had previously complained to the superior officers of the tenant to say that he had actually taken government accommodation and let out the same to some other third party while denying the possession of the tenanted premises. According to the tenant, if that were to be the contention of the landlord, it is inconceivable as to how the landlord could contend that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises.

(3.) I would find the reasoning of the Appellate Court while ordering eviction to be comprehensive. None of the grounds urged before me by the counsel has any merit. 1 must point out in the first place that earlier action for eviction filed against the tenant was on the ground that after obtaining an allotment from the Government on 01.08.1998, he had shifted himself to other building and he had sublet the premises to his son. The Court was raising two issues of whether he had ceased to occupy the premises by the fact that he had shifted himself to the government accommodation and whether there had been a subletting of the premises. The Rent Controller in the previous action directed eviction but the Appellate Court through a judgment delivered on 12.04.2007 observed that occupation of a member of the family ought not to have been taken as subletting and having found that since possession must be treated as a possession of the landlord himself found that there was no ground made even for cessation to occupy the premises. This was in relation to a petition which was filed on 8.2.1999. The ground of cessation to occupy could, therefore, have a bearing only to cessation that were taken place four months prior to 8.2.1999. The other ground of subletting is not even a ground which is urged in the present petition. The disposal of the earlier petition can have no bearing to present petition which is filed on an express statement that the property which was in the possession of a tenant has also been locked by his son and the property is unoccupied. The eviction is, therefore, sought for a cessation to occupy that had commenced according to the landlord on 01.08.2003 till the date when the petition was filed on 16.11.2007. I would, therefore, find that the subsequent petition was surely on different cause of action and any decision rendered in the earlier petition cannot have a bearing to the present dispensation.