Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 382 (PNJ)

Ramesh Chand v. Devki Devi @ Devi

2003-03-05

V.M.JAIN

body2003
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by Ramesh Chand tenant, against the order dated 6.4.1981, passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal, filed by the landlady, was accepted, the order, passed by the Rent Controller, was set aside and the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. 2. Smt. Devki Devi @ Devi (Landlady) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, against Ramesh Chand, tenant, interalia on the ground that Ramesh Chand was a tenant on the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and was liable to be ejeated from the said shop on the ground of non-payment of rent, change of user and that the shop in question was lying closed for a continuous period of four months, which had diminished the value and utility of the shop in question. In the written statement, filed by Ramesh Chand, tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant, between the parties was admitted, but it was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 60/- and not Rs. 100/-, as claimed by the landlady. It was further alleged that he had already paid the rent upto 31.7.1977 and that in order to avoid eviction, he had paid the rent upto 28.2.1978 along with interest. It was denied that the shop in question remained closed for a continuous period of four months before the filing of the petition. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition of the landlady, holding that the rate of rent was Rs. 60/- per month and that the tenant was not liable to be ejected from the said shop, on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was also held that the tenant was not liable to be ejected from the said shop on the ground that he ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of more than four months, without reasonable cause, at the time of filing of the petition. It was also held that the tenant was not liable to be ejected from the said shop on the ground that he ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of more than four months, without reasonable cause, at the time of filing of the petition. However, the appeal, filed by the landlady, was accepted by the learned appellate authority, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and order of ejectment was passed against the tenant, on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop in question for a continuous period of four months, prior to the filing of the petition, without sufficient cause. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant filed the present revision petition in this Court. 3. At the time of arguments, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent-landlady and have gone through the record carefully. 5. The only ground on which the appellate authority had ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the shop in question was that he ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months, before the filing of the petition. While coming to this conclusion, the learned appellate authority had placed reliance only on the alleged admission, made by Ramesh Chand, tenant, while appearing in the witness box as RW1. I have gone through the statement, made by RW1, Ramesh Chand tenant, with the assistance of learned counsel for the respondent-landlady. He deposed that the landlady wanted to evict the tenant from the shop, so he got a stay order from the Court. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he kept the shop closed for a year. On the other hand, he stated that he kept the shop closed for about four months, due to the pressure of the police and in token of it, he got the stay order from the Court. 6. In the said statement, the tenant had nowhere admitted that the shop remained closed for a continuous period of four months, before the filing of the petition. Thus, on the basis of the statement of RW1, Ramesh Chand, tenant, it could not be said that the tenant was liable to be evicted, from the shop in question, on this ground. In the said statement, the tenant had nowhere admitted that the shop remained closed for a continuous period of four months, before the filing of the petition. Thus, on the basis of the statement of RW1, Ramesh Chand, tenant, it could not be said that the tenant was liable to be evicted, from the shop in question, on this ground. The oral testimony of PW1, Smt. Devki Devi, landlady, that the shop remained closed for 6-7 months, prior to the filing of the petition, in my opinion, cannot be accepted, in the absence of any further proof. PW3, Chaman Lal, deposed that about two years earlier, the shop had remained closed for about one year. During cross-examination, he admitted that presently the shop was being run by Ramesh Chand tenant. AW4, Sham Lal, deposed that in the year 1977-78, the shop remained closed. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the shop was being run even now at the spot. In my opinion, from the above mentioned contradictory evidence, led by the landlady, it could not be said with certainty that the shop in question remained closed for a continuous period of four months. The mere admission of the tenant that the shop remained closed for four months due to the pressure of the Police, in my opinion, by itself would not be sufficient to order the eviction of the tenant from the shop in question. In my opinion, the learned appellate authority erred in law in ordering the ejectment of the tenant from the shop in question, on the ground that the shop remained closed for a period of four months, prior to the filing of the petition. Accordingly, I reverse the finding of the appellate authority in this regard. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition is allowed, the order dated 6.4.1981, passed by the appellate authority, is set aside and the ejectment petition, filed by the landlady, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.