Raj Kumar and Another vs Badri Parshad and Others

Nawab Singh, J.—Ejectment of the present revision-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as ''tenant'') from the demised premises was ordered by the Rent Controller, Sirsa by order dated May 12, 2004 on the ground of cessation to occupy the shop continuously for a period of four months without reasonable cause and the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its judgment dated October 6, 2006.

By filing the present revision, tenant has sought to impugn both the orders passed by the Courts below referred to above.

Grounds pleaded before this Court by the Tenant are that the present respondents-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ''landlord'') have failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that he (tenant) ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for a period of four months and as such, ejectment orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority were not tenable. Reliance was also placed on Compromise-deed executed between the parties on October 4, 1997 in a petition filed by the landlord for fixation of fair rent, as can be gleaned from the order passed in Lok-Adalat (Exhibit DX).

Contention of learned Counsel for the tenant is that since the matter was compromised between the parties on October 4, 1997 so, the question of tenant having ceased to occupy the shop continuously for a period of four months prior of present petition does not arise as the present petition was filed on April 22, 1998. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on Darshan Kumar by LRs v. Ranbir Gupta 1989 H.R.R. 177 and Amar Nath v. Guru Ramdass Textile Mills (2002) 130 P.L.R. 75.

Against this, learned Counsel for the landlord urged that the tenant has failed to prove that he did not cease to occupy the shop in question continuously for a period of four months prior to the filing of the application, in view of report ((sic)-3/C) of Local Commissioner Sh. Arvinder Singh Wadhwa, Advocate who was appointed by the Rent Controller to visit the demised premises and submit the status report.

A perusal of the report of Local Commissioner would, therefore, go to show that Local Commissioner visited the shop on April 27, 1998 at 6 p.m., that is, after 5 days of filing of the application for ejectment in the presence of the tenant and other residents of the locality. It was categorically stated by him that the shop was closed. It was locked. Tri-cycle of a Sweeper of Municipal Committee bearing No. 68 was parked outside the shop. On his asking, tenant opened the shop and he (Local Commissioner) noticed that there was no electricity connection in the shop. There was dust all around in the shop. A few bags of sugar were lying in the rear portion of the shop. He also inquired from the adjacent shop owners as to whether the shop was closed or not. All of them stated in one voice that shop was closed since two to two and a half years.

In the penultimate paragraph of the report, it has been observed that the shop was closed since 4-5 months prior to inspection. The case of the tenant was that he was running the grocery shop in the demised shop but he has not placed any documentary evidence to prove the same because no bills of material purchased by him or sold have been placed on record, so much so, there was no electricity connection in the shop. Had the shop been in running condition, the adjacent shop owners would have never stated to the Local Commissioner that it was closed since more than two and a half years. The tenant has also not filed any objection to the report of the Local Commissioner.

In view of this overwhelming evidence on record, landlords have successfully proved that tenant ceased to occupy the shop for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. Contention of learned Counsel for the tenant that in a petition for fixation of fair rent, parties entered into compromise on October 4, 1997 so, question of cessation to occupy the shop continuously for a period of four months does not arise, is also not convincing because the rent petition was filed on April 22, 1998 and it was pleaded by the landlord that tenant ceased to occupy the property for four and a half months prior to March 1, 1998 which means that after few days of the compromise, tenant ceased to occupy the shop.

The authorities referred to by learned Counsel for the tenant have been perused.

In Darshan Kumar''s case (supra) the tenants was of unsound mind and left the house on August 6, 1980 while the application of ejectment was filed on September 8, 1980. In that view of the matter, it was held by this Court that landlord failed to prove that tenants ceased to occupy the demised premises for more than four months.

In Amar Nath''s case (supra), it was held by this Court that mere closure of a business for some period cannot be termed with ''ceased to occupy''.

Here, in the case of hand, it has been clearly observed by the Local Commissioner who was an Advocate that shop was closed for 4-5 months prior to his visit. Such thus J being the position, authorities referred to above are of no help to the tenant.

In view of above, this Court is of considered opinion that both the Courts below rightly ordered the ejectment of the tenants from the demised premises on the ground stated above.

In upshot, for the reasons recorded supra, the revision is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.