JAGDISH PARSHAD Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 17th September, 1979 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul, under section 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) whereby an appeal of the tenant-respondent against an order of ejectment dated 21st October, j1975 passed by the learned Rent Controller was accepted and the ejectment application of the landlord petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act against the respondent on 16.1.1975 inter alia, on the ground that the respondent had ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for a continuous period of four months. The other grounds raised were that the respondent had failed to pay the arrears of rent after 13.12.1973; that the shop is in dilapidated condition and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation; that the petitioner wanted to reconstruct the same; the respondent has committed such acts which have materially impaired the value and utility of the property; the shop is bonafide required by the petitioner for carrying on his own business. None of these grounds, however, survives for consideration. Even the ground that the respondent had ceased to occupy the shop also failed in appeal. The learned Rent Controller had vide his order dated 21.10.1975 directed ejectment of the respondent from the shop in dispute but on an appeal filed by him the learned Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application of the petitioner vide judgment dated 17th Sept., 1979. This is how the petitioner has filed the present revision petition is this Court.

(3.) THE above circumstances make it clear that the respondent could not operate the Atta Chakki earlier for want of an electric power connection. This was undoubtedly a reasonable cause for not carrying on business in the shop in dispute. In spite of the fact that there is no averments in the application that the respondent ceased to occupy the shop without reasonable cause, the respondent has fully established on the record that he could not operate the Atta Chakki because of a reasonable cause i.e. non-provision of electric power connection to him.