Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 763 (PNJ)

Naval Kishore v. Padma Sharma

2003-05-21

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of ejectment passed against him on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the premises without sufficient cause for a period of more than four months and changed the user i.e. premises from tea stall to Steel furniture. 2. On the basis of rent note Ex. AW.6/2 dated 14.1.1977, the petitioner was inducted as tenant at the rent of Rs. 75/- per month. However, the landlord filed an ejectment petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent and has changed the user of the premises from business of tea stall to that of Steel furniture in the name and style of M/s Naval Sales Corporation and also ceased to occupy the premises since 18.1.1983 for a period of more than four months. It may be stated that the landlord produced number of witnesses to prove the ground of ejectment. However, the counsel for the tenant pleaded that he had no instructions during the course of trial. The tenant had not led any evidence and consequently, the Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence of the landlord passed an order of ejectment. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority. It was found that the counsel for the petitioner has pleaded no instructions on 2.3.1987 but the case was adjourned on subsequent dates but still at no stage tenant appeared before the Court so as to participate in the proceedings. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold argument before this Court. Firstly that the ejectment on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy premises is not sustainable. The landlord has relied upon the testimony of the witnesses from the electricity department to the effect that there is no consumption of electricity. Non-consumption of electricity cannot be the basis of passing an order of ejectment. For the said proposition, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Faquir Chand v. Faquir Singh and another, 1993 HRR 35 and Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain, 1989 HRR 438 : 1989(2) RCR(Rent) 233 (SC). However, a perusal of the finding recorded by the Courts below shows that it is not mere non-consumption of electricity which is the basis of passing an ejectment order. However, a perusal of the finding recorded by the Courts below shows that it is not mere non-consumption of electricity which is the basis of passing an ejectment order. It has also been found that the premises are lying locked since January, 1983. Since premises are lying locked and also there is no consumption of electricity, therefore, the presumption raised is that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building. The premises have been let out for commercial purpose. It is not possible that the commercial purpose can be carried out in the premises in dispute without consumption of electricity. 4. Still further, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that mere fact that the premises any lying locked is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises. He relied upon the judgment in Harjit Singh v. Harbans Lal, 1991 HRR 348 : 1991(2) RCR(Rent) 210 (P&H) for the said proposition. However, the said contention is again not tenable. It is a question of fact in each case whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. It has been found that the premises are lying locked without consumption of electricity and there is no evidence that the petitioner has any cause of keeping the premises locked continuously for a period of more than four months. In the case of Harjit Singh (supra) cited by the counsel for the petitioner the fact was that the tenant had gone abroad. In such circumstances, it was held there was no evidence that the tenant had any animus revertendi. 5. Therefore, I am unable to find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the Courts below that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises for a period of more than four months. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the said premises.