Prem Chand vs Smt. Usha Kumari

V.K. Bali, J.—The Revision herein is against the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

The landlord sought eviction of tenant on various grounds inclusive of that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop in question for a period of more than four months without reasonable cause. Since the eviction has been ordered on the only ground that the petitioner ceased to occupy the shop for the statutory period mentioned in the Act, the arguments in this Court have been addressed only on this point. The Appellate Authority dealt with the issue aforesaid in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10. Paragraphs 8, 9 and part of the para 10 read as follows:-

"The counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Rent Controller, in respect of issue No. 1 alone, because the other issues have been decided in his favour. He has contended that the learned Rent Controller, has . erred in deciding this issue against him, on the basis of the disconnection of the electric connection, three/four years ago. He argued that in view of the statement of tenant, that he had himself got the connection disconnected, no adverse inference could have been drawn. He also argued that the statement of R.W.1 who owns a shop near the shop in dispute should have been believed by the trial Court in preference to the statement of P.W.1 whose shop is two furlongs away from the shop in dispute.

There is no force in any of the contention, raised by the learned counsel for the accused. The appellant Prem Chand has admitted in his own statement that for the last 7/8 months, he had shifted to Nissing, and from there he used to come daily to attend to the shop in dispute. In cross-examination, he has further stated that the electric connection was disconnected about 3/4 years ago. He also admitted that the connection was in his name, and had continued for 10/12 years. It is not understood as to why the connection should be disconnected when the same was continuing for the last 10/12 years. The only inference from its dis-connection 3/4 years ago, from the date of making of statement of this witness clearly shows that he had left the shop in dispute, and was not carrying on any business there. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to reason that a person should have two shops one at Nissing and the other at Karnal. It is not possible for him to carry on two business at two different places. Mool Chand RW-2 produced on his behalf is clearly an interested witness. He admitted that he was a tenant in the adjoining shop which also belonged to Usha Kumari, the landlord of the present case. He also admitted that Usha Kumari had filed an ejectment petition against him. Thus, he had a common cause with the tenant and he could go to any extent to support in his favour. No reliance can be placed on his statement. On the contrary, the witnesses produced by the landlord was disinterested witness. His shop was in the same locality, where the shop in dispute was situated. His statement that the shop was lying closed for the last 3-1/2 years is in consonance with the inference drawn by me above from the disconnection of the electric connection 3-1/2 years ago.

Apart from above, it will be appropriate to mention that in the present case at the time of filing the petition, the address of the tenant was given as that of Nissing, where he had shifted his business. Service also was effected upon him on the Nissing address. Though this factor alone would not have been very material, yet in the circumstances of the case, it assumes importance. It establishes that the tenant is in fact having a shop at Nissing and in case he is having a shop at Nissing, inference can be drawn that he must have closed the shop in dispute."

Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contends that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller are not supported by the evidence available on record. Highlighting his contention referred to above, he states that the Appellate Authority returned a finding that the petitioner was running a shop at Nissing and from the reading of the statement of the petitioner it would appear that he never made such a statement. Mr. Goel is only partly right. So far as the petitioner-tenant is concerned, he did not state with regard to his running second shop but his witness RW-2 candidly admitted this fact. Confronted with this situation, Mr. Goel contends that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority has disbelieved the statement of Mool Chand RW-2 and that being so, the whole of the statement of RW-2 should have been discarded. It may be recalled that the statement of RW-2 Mool Chand has been discarded on the ground that he is a tenant of adjoining shop under the respondent-landlord and that landlord had filed eviction proceedings against him as well. For the reasons mentioned above, the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were justified in not placing any reliance on RW-2 in support of the contention of the petitioner-tenant that he was still occupying the shop in dispute. That, however, does not mean that admissions made by him on a material point which turn in favour of the respondent-landlord cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the controversy in hand.

I find no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same.