FIRM SHANKAR DYE STUFF CO. Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of the tenants took the shop in dispute on lease on July 18, 1958 in the name of his firm Shankar Dye Stuff Company. He died on July 29, 1972 leaving behind his widow Geeta Rani, son Sunil Kumar and three daughters. As after his death nobody carried on the business, the landlords moved this petition for ejectment of the heirs of Shiv Kumar on the ground that the rent has not been paid from April 1, 1974 and that the shop had remained closed for more than 4 months since July 31, 1972. Though the petition was opposed but no rent was tendered by any of the heirs on the first day of hearing. However, Sunil Kumar made an application on February 19, 1980 that he was major when the application was filed and had been wrongly shown as minor. On that very date he also tendered the arrears of rent. His application was allowed and he was shown as major in the title of the petition. The Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence led by the parties upheld the pleas and allowed the petition. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of the validity of the tender of arrears of rent but affirmed the ejectment order on the other ground, namely, that the shop remained unoccupied for more than 4 months since April, 1973 without reasonable cause. Hence, this revision by the widow and the son of the deceased tenant.

(2.) THE finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is essentially a finding of fact and no substantial argument was advanced which could justify interference in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. That apart, a perusal of the statement of Sunil Kumar would conclusively show that the shop remained closed after the death of Shiv Kumar and at least for a couple of years no business was carried on by any of the heirs. Sunil Kumar deposed that he was 14 years old when his father died and he remained in the school for one year thereafter. After passing the Matriculation examination he joined D.A.V. College and studied for one year. Though he left the college after one year but he kept on pursuing his studies privately. He took the University examination of 11th and 12th standard and it only was thereafter that he went to the shop. He further admitted that apart from him nobody else ever attended the shop. His statement that he has been carrying on the business since he stopped his studies also does not carry any conviction because he has not been able to produce any account books/vouchers showing sale and purchase of any goods at the shop. Under the pressure of cross-examination he further admitted that he had joined hands with one Suresh Kumar in contractor business. It is, therefore, established beyond doubt from his statement that no business was carried on in the shop in dispute after the death of Shiv Kumar for a number of years and the shop obviously remained closed during that period. The Appellate Authority was thus fully justified in affirming the finding of the Rent Controller that the shop in dispute remained closed without reasonable cause for more than 4 months, since July 31, 1972 which rendered the tenants liable to ejectment.