Raja Ram and Others vs Surjan Singh and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—The tenants-petitioners, have filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Faridkot, dated November, 19, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing their ejectment was maintained.

The landlords-respondent sought the ejectment of the tenants-petitioners, inter alia on the ground that the tenants had ceased to occupy the shop in question, continuously for a period of more than four months without reasonable cause. In reply to this averment, it was stated by the tenants that "this sub-paragraph of the application was wrong. Arun Kumar, grandson of respondent No. 1, fell ill. He was taken to Sabatu (Himachal Pradesh) for treatment in the hospital of Dr. Khanna who is expert in heart. The boy died in December, 1971. During the interval, the shop remained closed sometimes for a week and sometimes for ten days. However, it never remained closed after December, 1971. The respondent is still carrying on the bussiness of Karyana in the shop and his sons assist him in his bussiness." Thus, the relevant issue, which survived for decision in the appeal for the Appellate Authority as well as in this revision is issue No. 2, which is to the following effect;

Whether respondents ceased to occupy the shop more than four months? If so to what effect?

After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion, that the landlords successfully proved that the tenants ceased to occupy the shop, in dispute, in the sense of actual user for a continuous period of four months and kept the same locked without any reasonable cause and thus, they have become liable to be ejected u/s 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. In appeal this finding of the Rent Controller has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the tenants have come up in revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended in the first instance, that the issue was not properly framed and it has not been established by the landlords that the tenant shad ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. According to the learned counsel, the burden to prove the reasonable cause was on the landlords. The appellate Authority has wrongly observed that that once it is proved that the building remained unoccupied by the tenants for a period of four months and once it is proved, the onus will shift to the tenants to prove that the same was without reasonable cause.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, cited Mohan Lal v. Kasturi Lal 1966 P.L.R. Supp. 35, 1966 68 PLRS 35 wherein it has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as follows:-

The facts necessary to establish any reasonable cause could only be in the knowledge of the tenant, and if he did not lead any evidence to establish those facts, it was hardly the statutory duty of the Rent Controller to give a detailed and specific finding as to reasonable cause for not occupying the shop.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length. It has been concurrently held by both the authorities below that the shop, in question remained unoccupied for more than four months. Reference, in this behalf, may be made to the statement of Bishan Dass, Meter Reader, AW3, who stated that the shop remained close from December 13, 1971 to April 7, 1972, and was locked even on June 7, 1972, when the meter reading was taken after calling Raja Ram, tenant, from his house. It has been further found by the two authorities below that the metre reading was nil from October 8, 1971 to October 11, 1972, that is, for about a year. The landlords brought on the record a statement which showed the number of units consumed by the tenants in the shop, earlier. If, once it is proved by the landlords that the shop, in dispute remained closed and thus unoccupied by the tenants, then, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal''s case (supra), the burden will be on the tenants to prove that it was not so without reasonable cause. The only plea taken in the written statement, as reproduced above, was the illness of the grandson who was taken to Sapatu (Himachal Pradesh) for treatment in the hospital. It is clear from the statement of the tenant who appeared as RW 7, that his grandson remained there for about two months only. Thus, this explanation did not satisfy the two authorities below as to give a finding that this was a reasonable cause for not occupying the shop, in dispute for more than four months In any case, whether the tenants ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of more than four months without reasonable cause or not, is primarily a question of fact The two authorities below after going through the whole evidence on the record, have given a concurrent finding in favour of the landlords. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the said finding given by the two Courts b low after appreciation of the evidence.

Consequently, this petition fails and in dismissed with costs. However the tenants are allowed two months time to vacate the premises, in dispute provided all the arrears of rent, if any and the advance rent for two months is deposited with the Rent controller within a fortnight from the date of this order.