YASH KUMARI TRIKHA Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts barely needed, relevant for disposal, of the present revision petition filed by Yash Kumari Tarikha widow of petitioner-Shiv Charan Dass-landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the landlord), are that the original landlord-Shiv Charan Dass (since deceased) filed an ejectment petition against respondent-Arun Kumar son of Amir Chand- tenant (hereinafter to be referred as the tenant) from the demised premises, invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), inter alia, pleading that the tenant took the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- for showroom, printing press material and wedding cards. It was oral tenancy and no rent deed was executed but the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 01.04.1992 till the filing of the petition. According to the landlord, the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised shop for a continuous period of more than four months without any sufficient cause. He has shifted his business and showroom at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market, near Bus Stand, Amritsar and the demised premises is lying closed and locked materially impairing its value and utility.

(2.) LEVELING a variety of allegations in all, according to the landlord, the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised shop for the last more than four months and, thus, impaired its value and utility. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the landlord filed the ejectment petition against the tenant in the manner indicated hereinabove.

(3.) ON merits, the case set-up by the tenant in brief, insofar as relevant, was that he has taken the premises as a showroom and office as he is running printing press for which the premises is used as front office. In fact, the tenant is running printing press along with other machinery which he has installed in a separate premises as the landlord did not permit him to instal the same in the shop in question. For this reason, the tenant is running business of procuring the orders and delivering the goods in the premises in dispute for facilitation of his business. As he is very actively using the shop in dispute for his business, therefore, the question of its impairing the value and utility did not arise at all. It will not be out of place to mention here that the tenant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the ejectment petition and prayed for its dismissal.