HARI DEV Vs. MANDIR BHAGWAN DWARKA NATH JI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision directed against order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and as affirmed by the appellate Authority.

(2.) VIDE rent-note dated 17. 5. 1965, shop in dispute was let out by one Mandir Bhagwan Dwarka Nath Ji, Gita Nagar, Nai Abadi, Hoshiarpur, landlord (respondent herein) to the petitioner at a rent of Rs. 4.00 per month. Landlord sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he is in arrears of rent with effect from 1. 2. 1971 to 30. 9. 1980 and has ceased to occupy the shop for more than nine years. . In his petition for eviction, landlord averred that petitioner is not doing any business for the last nine years in the shop in dispute and it has remained closed upto the date of filing of the petition. Landlord averred that the petitioner has started his 'tal', timber and stone crusher business under the name and style of 'sud and Co. ' on Bahadurpur Road, Hoshiarpur. His brother died about nine years ago and since then he is doing the said business in the shop in dispute. On notice of the eviction petition, rent together with interest and costs was tendered by the petitioner and therefore, the ground of non-payment of rent does not survive. In regard to the ground of petitioner having ceased to occupy the shop for more than nine years, he in his written statement averred that in the shop he had started the business of giving on hire utensil and he has been carrying on the said business till the filing of the petition. He averred that since this business was fetching low income, he also started cloth business in addition to the business of giving on hire the utensils. In regard to carrying of separate business of timber and stone crusher, petitioner averred that he had been a partner with his brother during his life time and even now he is partner with his widow. He however, denied that he has shifted his business or has ceased to occupy the shop. In support of his case, landlord led oral evidence by way of examining four witnesses. On appreciation of oral evidence brought on record, Rent Controller found that the demised premises have remained closed for a considerable period and the petitioner has not been able to explain as to why the premises remained closed. The active participation of the petitioner in other business i. e. timber and fire-wood, was also found to be indicative of the fact that he has ceased to occupy the premises without any sufficient cause for nine years. In appeal by the petitioner, the learned appellate Authority has affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that the revision petition is without any merit. Initially; it is for the landlord to prove that the premises have remained unoccupied by the tenant for a requisite period, i. e. four months preceding the presentation of the eviction application. It is only thereafter that burden of proof shifts on the tenant to establish that it was not so without any reasonable cause. It is for the tenant to explain as to under what circumstances he ceased to occupy the premises as the facts necessary to establish any reasonable cause can only be in the knowledge of the tenant. It is for him to lead evidence to prove reasonable cause for keeping the prermises unoccupied. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that there had been a reasonable cause for him not to occupy the premises; rather the case set up by him was that he is continuing in possession and carrying on the business of giving utensils on hire and also cloth business. This he has failed to establish. Both the Authorities below on the consideration of the evidence brought on record have found that the petitioner had not been carrying on the business of giving utensils on hire for nine years and it was only in order to defeat the right of the landlord to seek eviction: that he took up the plea that he is doing cloth business in the premises. The eviction application was filed on 28. 10. 1980 and the cloth business alleged to have been started was from 20. 10. 1980. It appears that on coming to know that petition has been filed against him, petitioner hurriedly started the cloth business. As regards the interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction, it is only to be stated that this Court would not be. justified in reappraising the evidence which has already been reappraised by the appellate Authority. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction and this Court can interfere only when there is perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Authority under the Act or unless the Authority has arrived at the conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that how the conclusion arrived at by the Authorities below is perverse or not based on material. Accordingly, no interference is called for.