BHAGAT SINGH Vs. SARBJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point issue, in revision, here is-whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of more than four months without reasonable cause rendering him liable to ejectment under Clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) IT was the case of the landlord that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises without reasonable cause with effect from February 1, 1981. This was denied by the tenant in his written statement where he also took the plea that he had gone to a foreign country temporarily and in his absence, his brother Parbinder Singh and his nephew Inderpal Singh had been carrying on business for and on his behalf in the premises let out to him. The Rent Controller, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Jai Chand Jain v. Sohan Lal, 1975 R.C.J. 157 : 1975 R.C.R. 5, came to the conclusion that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for a continuous period of more than four months. This being based upon the finding that the tenant had gone abroad in 1981 and had returned only in 1983. An order of ejectment was consequently passed against the tenant on this ground. This order was, however, upset in appeal by the Appellate Authority relying upon another judgment of this Court in Balwant Singh v. Gurdial Singh, 1972 R.C.R. 85 : 1971 P.L.R. 1032. It being held that there being nothing on record to show that the tenant had parted with exclusive control and possession of the demised premises, it could not be said that he had ceased to occupy them.

(3.) THE significant statement to note at the very outset is that of tenant RW-1 Sarbjit Singh that he had gone abroad in April, 1981 and returned to India only in August, 1983. It will be recalled that the reply of tenant-Sarbjit Singh to the plea that he had ceased to occupy the demised premises, was that during his absence abroad, his brother and nephew had been carrying on business in the demised premises for and on his behalf. It is, however, pertinent to note that counsel for the tenant could point to no evidence on record to this effect. Further, a reading of the statement of RW-1 Sarbjit Singh would show that he had obtained a licence for the manufacture of soap as also one under the Sales-Tax Act, which he stated, had been issued in the name of the firm which was a registered one. He also deposed that the accounts of the firm were regularly maintained. He did not, however, care to mention who the members of the firm were nor did he produce the certificate of registration of the firm for this purpose. The accounts of the firm too were not produced with a view to support his absence abroad was for or on his behalf or that he had any interest therein. There is also no evidence to show that either his brother Parbinder Singh or his nephew Inderpal Singh were living with him or were dependent upon him. In other words, there is a total lack of evidence to support his plea that the business being carried on in the demised premises, during his absence was for or his behalf.