AMRIT LAL SEHGAL Vs. RAMAWATI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the tenant is directed against the order of Appellate Authority, whereby reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, it has been held that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises and was therefore, liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises and consequently, order of ejectment on the ground of cessation to occupy the premises for a period of 12 months without reasonable cause has been ordered.

(2.) RELEVANT facts are that eviction of the revision petitioner/ tenant was sought from the demised premises by the respondent- landlady on two grounds, viz. non-payment of the rent Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? and the tenant having ceased to occupy the premises for a period of 12 months without reasonable cause. The Rent Controller after holding the trial held that the tenant was in arrears of rent and accordingly ordered his eviction on that ground. As regards the other ground, the Rent Controller returned the finding against the land-lady and consequently did not order the eviction of the tenant on that ground. Landlady filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has returned the finding that the revision petitioner/ tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for 12 months without any reasonable cause and has consequently ordered the eviction of the revision petitioner- tenant on the second ground also.

(3.) PETITION was filed on 20.11.1990. Therefore, the relevant period of 12 months during which the tenant is required to be proved to have ceased to occupy the tenanted premises is to be reckoned from 20.11.1989. The landlady examined a witness from the office of Garrison Engineer, Kasauli, who testified that the tenant had been posted in the Garrison Engineer office at Kasauli in the year 1974 and that in 1979 when that office was disbanded the tenant was transferred to Jatog and that on 22nd May, 1989, he was further transferred to Mahow (M.P). The landlady herself testified that after the tenant had been transferred to Jatog, he did not occupy the premises, though some tourists deputed by the tenant occasionally stayed in the premises.