DARSHAN SINGH Vs. RANBIR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order was passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this revision petition, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 152-CII of 1989 was moved on behalf of the legal representatives of the tenant Darshan Kumar alleging that he had not been heard of by the applicants who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive and that it shall be presumed as provided in Section 108 of the Evidence Act, that he has died. Notice of the application was given to the counsel for the landlord. No reply has been filed to the said application, nor the same is being contested. Consequently, the same is allowed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord did not mention any specific period for which the tenant ceased to occupy the premises without any reasonable cause. In the absence of any specific period, argued the learned counsel, the Rent Controller rightly found that there was no cogent evidence to prove the said fact and dismissed the ejectment application, but the view taken by the Appellate Authority in this respect was wholly wrong, illegal and arbitrary. In order to contend that the landlord should mention the period for which the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises, the learned counsel relied upon Karam Chand Joshi v. Kartar Singh, 1977(1) RCR 327 : 1977 Rent Law Reporter 779 and Puran Singh v. Ram Murti, 1981(2) Rent Law Reporter 448. It was also submitted that physical possession as such was not necessary to occupy the demised premises, if the tenant was otherwise in occupation thereof. Reference in this behalf was made to Buta Ram v. Balwant Singh, 1987 Haryana Rent Reporter 617.