RACHHPAL SINGH Vs. CHANDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenants revision against the order of the Rent Controller, affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, whereby on the eviction petition filed by the landlord -respondent, eviction has been ordered from the shop in dispute on the ground that the petitioner ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of more than 12 months without reasonable cause as envisaged under Section 14 (2) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be called "the Act").

(2.) The facts, as contained in the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Una, 4ated 3.10.1997 are that the shop in question, situated near the old Civil Hospital Main Bazar, Una, was owned by one Smt. Raj Kaur before the year 1985, having been constructed in the year 1970. The said Raj Kaur had inducted the petitioner as a tenant, but in 1985 she had sold the shop to the respondent who, thus, stepped into her shoes as landlord. The rent of the same was Rs. 150/ - per month liable to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The latter filed eviction petition on the ground that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the shop for a continuous period of more than 12 months immediately prior to the filing of the eviction petition, without any reasonable cause. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that the petitioner had locked the shop in dispute and shifted his business to another shop situated in the same locality. This he had done about seven years prior to the filing of the eviction petition. On account of this Act of the petitioner, the value and utility of the shop in dispute was being impaired, as per the pleadings in the eviction petition.

(3.) In the reply filed by the petitioner to the eviction petition he denied that he had locked the shop in dispute, as alleged, and stated that he is running his business of selling cloth there. On account of heavy losses suffered by him in his business prior to the filing of the eviction petition, he had started doing his business of selling cloth as a hawker. For this reason he did not utilise the shop in dispute regularly and continuously, but he had not ceased to occupy it.