MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. M/S ALLIED PROPERTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 14280-CII of 2016 Exemption is granted from filing certified copies of the impugned orders and Annexures P-1 to P-12 and the same are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CR No. 4646 of 2016

(2.) Facts in brief are that the shop in question which is booth No.211, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh, was owned and possessed by Shri Sudesh Chander son of Shri Gur Parshad and Smt. Usha Rani wife of Shri Prem Pal and through their Power of Attorney, the said shop was let out by Mrs. Nirmal Joshi vide agreement dated 24.05.1990 and handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, the said shop was sold vide sale deed dated 20.05.2008 to the respondent-firm which stood transferred in its name vide transfer letter dated 03.06.2008. Respondent, thus, became the owner/landlord of the premises. Arrears of rent were claimed w.e.f. 02.09.2008 which were tendered by the petitioner and therefore, the said ground cease to operate as thereafter also, the rent was being regularly paid. The other ground which was pleaded for seeking eviction under Sec. 13 of the Rent Act was cease to occupy the premises without any sufficient cause for a period of more than 4 months. In support of this, it was asserted that shop in question is closed and the petitioner had shifted his business to Shop No.206, Sector 48, Motor Market, Chandigarh, which has been allot to him under the Rehabilitation Scheme of the Chandigarh Administration. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Courts below have come to a conclusion that the respondent-landlord has been able to establish that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises in question ordering the eviction of the petitioner.

(3.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the judgments passed by the Courts below cannot sustain as the findings are based upon conjectures and surmises. It has been contended that there is no evidence on record which shows that the shop in question remained closed and locked from June, 2008 to 2012. He asserts that there are bald assertions on the part of the respondent-landlord and the evidence, which has been led, is that of Budh Ram (PW-1) who is Lower Division Clerk, Electricity Department, Sub-Division No.7, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, who had stated that the electricity connection was disconnected in the month of June, 2008 and has been reconnected in June, 2012. Counsel contends that it has not been mentioned anywhere in his evidence that the shop was lying locked during this period, rather he has admitted that he had not gone to the spot nor is it his duty to take the meter-reading but he had deposed on the basis of the records alone. He contends that merely because there has been no consumption of electricity during this period, cannot be taken as a ground to conclude that the shop has been lying locked in the said period. It has further been asserted that the shop had remained closed off and on and that too because of the serious illness of the father of the petitioner i.e. Krishan Lal Maghoo. Medical bills and cards have been produced in Court by the petitioner. In support of this assertion, he places reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Kuldip Chand Vs. Kishori Lal, 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 81.