DHARAMPAL Vs. NAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present revision is directed against the order whereby the petitioner-tenant has been evicted from the shop situated in the Municipal Limit of Gohana. Respondent-landlord had filed a petition against the petitioner for his eviction from the demised shop on the ground of arrears of rent and the tenant ceasing to occupy the building continuously for a period of more than four months, besides pleading the ground of nuisance. The eviction petition, however, was dismissed, against which the landlord filed an appeal. The appeal has been accepted and the tenant-petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop within a period of one month. The said order is impugned through the present revision petition.

(2.) EARLIER , the Appellate Authority viewed that the Rent Controlled omitted to frame the relevant issue in regard to the tenant having ceased to occupy the demised premises and the case was remanded back to the Rent Controller, who, however, again decided against the landlord. The Appellate Authority has noticed in detail the evidence that was led by the parties to show that the shop had remained closed and, thus, the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of four months.

(3.) THE respondent-landlord has examined number of witnesses in support of his plea. Davinder Singh (PW-8) deposed that he used to pass in front of the demised shop and found it lying closed since June, 1998. Similar was the deposition of Ashok Kumar (PW-9). Kartar Singh (PW-2) is a Postman who gave evidence that he had visited the shop repeatedly and none was found available. Puran Singh (PW-4) was an official working at the complaint centre of Electricity Office. He also came forward to depose that the shop was lying closed. The evidence was also given by Manohar Lal (PW-5) on similar lines. In addition to the oral account given by various witnesses, the respondent- landlord has also produced Subhash, PW who was the official of the Electricity Board to show that there was hardly any consumption of electricity. He gave evidence in regard to the month-wise units consumed, which was on the basis of average reading. In this background, the submission as made that Court was mainly influenced by the evidence given by Subhash, PW, and has based its finding on the basis of electricity consumption alone is not substantiated. This is not the only evidence which has been taken into consideration while allowing the appeal. The Court has clearly found, as can be seen from the impugned order, that the assertion of the landlord is not only on the basis of non-consumption of electricity but it is also corroborated by oral testimony of various witness. In fact, it is specifically observed by the Appellate Court that non-consumption of electricity is not considered to be the sole ground for holding that the shop is lying vacant. The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the case of Sohan Lal and another v. Gurbachan Singh, 1990(1) RCR(Rent) 387 : (1989-2)96 PLR 478 to urge that mere consumption of electricity by itself is not sufficient to hold that tenant had ceased to occupy the premises, as such, would not be of any avail to him. The ratio of law as held in this case is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Here, non-consumption of electricity is not the only ground on which the eviction is ordered. Number of witnesses were examined who deposed that the shop was seen lying closed. It is the cumulative effect of the entire evidence which has been considered to hold that the landlord had succeeded in proving that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop for a continuous period of four months. The oral account given by the witnesses produced on behalf of the petitioner have rightly not been believed as they did not specify the period when they saw the shop lying open. Even the documents, which were produced on record, were kept as marked documents only and as such, can not legally be taken into consideration as valid piece of evidence.