Ram Lok vs Tarloki Nath

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Ram Lok (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Phagwara, dated 15-12-1979 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Kapurthala, dated 18-3-1982. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner and the appeal preferred had since been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.

The relevant facts are that the respondent preferred eviction application against the petitioner on a number of grounds. The surviving ground which requires consideration is as to whether the petitioner had ceased to occupy the suit premises continuously for a period of four months without reasonable cause. It was respondent case that the petitioner is not in occupation of the suit premises continuously since November, 1976.

In the written statement filed, the petitioner had asserted that he had continuously been doing business in the shop.

The learned Rent Controller had recorded that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the suit premises for a period exceeding four months prior to the filing of eviction petition without any reasonable cause.

As mentioned above, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that merely because if electricity was not consumed is no ground to hold that the petitioner had not been in occupation of the property in question. In fact, according to him, his evidence and the statement of the petitioner clearly show that the petitioner had been carrying on business in the suit property. He was continuously in occupation of the same.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that since it is not the case of the petitioner that there was reasonable cause for his not carrying on the business or not in occupation of the suit property. The said fact need not be gone into. The law, therefore, would only require that the petitioner had continuously ceased to occupy the suit premises for a period of four months before the filing of the petition.

In the present case in hand, there is a finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority. Once the said finding is not absurd and the evidence has been appreciated more so correctly, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sub-section (5) to Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") will not interfere. So is the position in the present case.

Otherwise also there is evidence on the record to come to this conclusion. The petition for eviction had been filed on February 3, 1978. It is in evidence of the Meter Reader that the suit premises were locked from 13-12-1976 to 9-2-1978. Not only that, the petitioner had surrendered his sales tax number which is clear pointer that he is not doing any business. To crown it all, the petitioner, who claims to be doing business in the suit premises, has not produced any document of account books to show that, in fact, any business was transacted from the suit premises. These findings clearly show that it had been proved that the petitioner was not carrying on any business in the suit property and, in fact, had ceased to occupy the premises for the relevant period. There is no ground to interfere.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the suit premises.