RAMESH CHAND Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, Sangrur dated 17.05.1996 and the order dated 22.04.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby eviction has been declined on the grounds of cease to occupy, in spite of the fact that it was noticed that the electricity connection had been disconnected in the premises in dispute and there was no water connection in the premises for the last five years, before the date of the filing of the application i.e. 05.09.1988.

(2.) The denial of bonafide requirement was also on the ground that the property is a commercial property and therefore, could not be used for residential purpose. Similarly, on the grounds of nuisance also whereby eviction was sought, the reasoning given by the Rent Controller was merely because trees were standing in the suit land would not constitute any nuisance and photographs had shown that premises were not in good condition, but nuisance must be of frequent and unusual character and, therefore, mere breaking open of the gate and the entry of some cattle would not be as such of a nuisance to the occupiers of building in the neighbourhood.

(3.) The said findings have been given the stamp of approval by the Appellate Authority, who also further noticed that the Clerk of the Municipal Committee, Sangrur had appeared as PW-3, who had admitted that the a complaint was made by Mohallawalas, but on account of the no action having been taken by the Executive Officer, the findings as such had been upheld. Resultantly, an application for leading additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was moved and the same was dismissed on the grounds that the said facts were in knowledge as such and the documents were very much in the knowledge of the tenant/applicant, while leading evidence. Even on the issue of non-occupation, it was found that it was rented land and not a building and, therefore, the same could not be got vacated on the ground of non-occupation.