KULDIP CHAND Vs. KISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I . The tenant had 'ceased to occupy' - his only ground for consideration. The landlord's application for eviction of the tenant was required to be considered on the only issue whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a period of four months prior to the filing of the petition. The landlord had admittedly filed a petition earlier taking up the same plea for earlier years and the petition had been dismissed on 09.10.1982. The present petition for eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises since January 1983. The contention was found favour with both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority who held, inter alia, that the landlord was not entitled to urge the very same ground for the period which was rejected in an earlier round of litigation. The Rent Controller also found himself unable to agree with the contention of the landlord that for the only reason of non-consumption of electricity, it was not possible to conclude that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises. The Appellate Authority had adopted an additional line of reasoning, referring to the Trading Account, Profit and Loss Account and Balance-sheet upto 31.03.1985 (Ex.R-1 to R-3) and similar Account for the succeeding years in 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86 and 1986-87 to come to the conclusion that the tenant had been carrying on the business and the landlord was not entitled to obtain eviction on the said ground. II. The Local Commissioner's report-extent of relevance.

(2.) AT the time when the revision was admitted, this Court was pleased to appoint Local Commissioner by its order dated 22.10.1991, to visit the spot and report if the shop was lying closed. Shri H.S. Sethi, Advocate, present in the Court, had been appointed as the Commissioner and it was received by the Court on 28.10.1991 recording the fact that the shop was found closed.

(3.) THE cessation to occupy should not merely be a matter of fact but shall also be without reasonable cause. It is therefore permissible for a tenant to even contend that business was seasonal in character or that there was some other supervening reasons as illness that necessitated the closure of the premises. The above two circumstances are merely illustrative of the fact that the mere closure of the shop itself will not be proof of the cessation of business and the landlord would succeed only by proving the stoppage of business by a tenant accompanied by a conduct which would show its cessation. In a given situation where the shop was shown to be closed, the burden would be deemed light for then the onus will shift on the tenant to explain the circumstances under which the business premises had remained closed.