AJIT KUMAR JAIN Vs. ATUL KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJIT Kumar Jain petitioner was inducted as tenant in a shop situated at Jind. Petitioner has been unsuccessful in both the courts below and aggrieved against the same, he has filed present revision petition.

(2.) IN the present case, eviction petition was preferred on 12th January, 1990 and after 18 years, this Court is deciding the revision petition as this case has a chequered history. Earlier, the tenant was proceeded ex-parte. He filed a revision, in which he succeeded and against that, an SLP was preferred, where order of this Court was maintained, which is evident from the fact that replication to the plaint was filed after 11 years.

(3.) EVICTION petition was filed on two grounds. Firstly, that there has been default in payment of rent and the second ground pleaded was that tenant has ceased to occupy and run his business in the demised shop and same was lying closed since 17th August, 1989, which is more than four months and that being continuous, tenant, on this ground is liable to be evicted. A reference can be made to Section 13(2)(5) of the Haryana Rent Restriction Act, wherein a condition has been laid that in case tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for a period of four months continuously, he is liable to be evicted. A written statement was filed to the eviction petition. Written statement has been attached with the present petition as Annexure P-5. In reply to relevant para, regarding the fact that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises, it has been averred as under : "4. (b) that in reply to sub-para (b) of the petition it is submitted that the respondent never ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for a continuous period of 4 months or more or from 17.8.89 till the date of eviction petition that the shop never remained lying locked as alleged in this para. The respondent has been doing his business regularly/continuously in the shop in question. However, it is submitted that the shop might be closed for 2/3 days on four or five occasions for the illness of the respondent or on account of the pendency of the litigation between the respondent and his brothers over the ancestral property, since 1983 the respondent had to attend the Court or to look after and prepare his cases. Thus the absence of the respondent for 2/3 days in a row was sufficient reason and not otherwise. The contents of sub para (b) of the petition are wrong hence denied."