Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 670 (PNJ)

Ram Saran Dass v. Yog Raj

2004-07-07

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the Act) filed by the landlord challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-respondent has been able to establish that the demised premises did not remain unoccupied continuously from 1.2.1984 to 30.7.1984 without a reasonable cause. On that basis it was concluded that the tenant-respondent was not liable to be evicted under Section 13(2)(v) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the landlord-petitioner filed Rent Application No. 34-2 of 24.7.1984, seeking ejectment of the tenant-respondent. The landlord-petitioner claimed that the demised premises were rented out to one Des Raj who is the father of respondents 1, 6 and 7 and grand-father of respondents 2 to 5. It was alleged that the respondents ceased to occupy the demised premises without sufficient cause since February, 1984 as the shop was lying locked from 1.2.1984 till the filing of the ejectment petition on 24.7.1994. It was further alleged that Yog Raj tenant-respondent I had left Ferozepur on 2.2.1984 and the tenant-respondents had failed to pay rent from April, 1984 to June, 1984 till 15.4.1984. It was claimed that till April, 1984, tenant-respondent Rajinder Kumar was carrying on his business in Toori Bazar Ferozepur. The allegation with regard to ceasing to occupy the demised premises without sufficient cause and the allegation that the demised premises are lying closed since 1.2.1984, were controverted. It was also denied that tenant-respondent 1 Yog Raj had left Ferozepur on 2.2.1984. It was further asserted that tenant-respondent 1 was to pay amount of hypothecated limit executed in favour of the Stale Bank of Paliala and on account of default in payment, the Bank had locked the premises on 15.4.1984 in order to recover the amount. The premises remained locked from 16.4.1984 to 29.6.1984. When the shop was opened at the instance of tenant-respondent 1, on 29.06.1984 goods amounting to Rs. 1829.49 paise were sold. On 2.7.1984 and 3.7.1984, goods amounting to Rs. 2347/- and Rs. 700/- were sold. On 28.7.1984, Rs. 15,000/- were deposited in the Bank and again on 30.7.1984 Rs. 3834/- were deposited after the sale of goods lying in the demised shop. The balance amount of Rs. 1829.49 paise were sold. On 2.7.1984 and 3.7.1984, goods amounting to Rs. 2347/- and Rs. 700/- were sold. On 28.7.1984, Rs. 15,000/- were deposited in the Bank and again on 30.7.1984 Rs. 3834/- were deposited after the sale of goods lying in the demised shop. The balance amount of Rs. 12620.89 paisa was deposited by Rajinder Kumar in the account of the firm M/s Lakhpal Rai Des Raj to obtain the keys of the shop. The business on the shop is now being run by Rajinder Kumar under the name and style of M/s Chawla Trading Company. It was also alleged that after about a month; he joined his mother as partner who is respondent No. 8 in the instant petition. 3. The rent was tendered before the Rent Controller and the ground of non-payment of rent do not survive. However, the other grounds that the tenant-respondent had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause has been considered by both the Courts below. The Rent Controller has made a detailed reference to the documentary as well as oral evidence to conclude that on 16.4.1984 the Stale Bank of Patiala had locked the demised premises which has not been considered as a voluntary act on the part of the tenant-respondent. It has also been found that the demised premises did not remain closed from 1.2.1984 because on 17.3.1984, Ravinder Kumar, Meter Reader of the Punjab State Electricity Board recorded the meter reading showing the electricity consumption of 64 units. It has further been found that no evidence has been produced on record to show that the demised premises remained locked with effect from 1.2.1984, continuously for a period of four month. On the contrary evidence showing that the shop was opened on 2.7.1984, 3.7.1984, 28.7.1984 and 30.7.1984 and the goods of various amounts were sold which was deposited with the State Bank of Patiala. 4. The appellate Authority has accepted the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and has recorded the following:- "The sole question to be determined in this case is whether the tenants have ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause rendering them liable to ejectment under Clause (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Des Raj was the original tenant in the demised premises where he as running Karyana business and in the year 1979 he expired and Yog Raj started carrying on the business and Yog Raj owed huge amount to different creditors including Slate Bank of Patiala, Ferozepur, and the said bank to recover the amount, locked the premises on or about 16.4.1984. There is no positive evidence on the record to show that the premises remained locked since 1.2.1984. According to AW1 Harbeet Inder Singh he was told by Narinder Singh Accountant of his Branch on 13.2.1984 that the firm has since closed its business and the shop was lying locked and said Narinder Singh has not been examined, therefore, there is evidence of the premises being closed earlier to 13.2.84 or since 1.2.84. Moreover, according to RW4 Ravinder Kumar Meter Reader, P.S.E.B. He recorded the meter reading on 17.3.84 and the meter reading showed the electricity consumption of 64 units and earlier to it meter reading was done on 19.1.1984, if the shop had continuously remained closed since 1.2.1984, there would not have been consumption of electricity to the extent of 64 units between 19.1.84 and 17.3.84. The bank removed the lock on 30-31.7.84 when the loan amount was cleared. Therefore, the period counted between 16.4.84 and 30.7.84 does not make it to be four months. Even otherwise also locking of the premises by the Bank does not come within the terms "ceased to occupy". It is not voluntary act on the part of the tenants, because they could not open the shop or be in physical possession of the same because of the act of another party i.e. the bank. Moreover, during locking of the premises, the bank remained in possession on behalf of the tenants." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that contradictory findings have been recorded by both the Courts below. According to the learned counsel, either the tenant can remain in possession after the Bank had closed the premises on 16.4.1984 or the possession was acquired by the Bank. The learned counsel has maintained that it is a contradiction in terms that during the locking of the premises the Bank remained in possession on behalf of the tenant. According to the learned counsel, either the tenant can remain in possession after the Bank had closed the premises on 16.4.1984 or the possession was acquired by the Bank. The learned counsel has maintained that it is a contradiction in terms that during the locking of the premises the Bank remained in possession on behalf of the tenant. The learned counsel has further argued that Rajinder Kumar son of Des Raj who acquired the possession of the demised premises did not acquire the tenancy rights as the tenancy rights were succeeded to by tenant-respondent Yog Raj. The learned counsel has emphasised that the tenant-respondent I who had acquired the tenancy right, in fact did not occupy the demised premises after 16.4.1984 which would bring his case within the provisions of Section 13(2)(v) of the Act. 6. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below do not deserve to be interfered by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act unless there is perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Chaudhary Sunder Lal v. Ram Sarup, 1999(2) R.C.R. 207. He has also argued that rib evidence has been produced on record showing that the tenant-respondents have ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of four months preceding the date of filing of the petition. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Amar Nath v. Guru Ramdass Textile Mills, (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 75 and Kedar Nath v. Rattan Chand, (2000-1)124 P.L.R. 192. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, I am of the considered opinion that this petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that the landlord-petitioners have failed to prove that the tenant-respondent had ceased to occupy the demised premises with effect from 1.2.1984 continuously for a period of four months without sufficient cause. Moreover, it has been shown that on 17.3.1984, the meter reading was recorded by Ravinder Kumar, Meter Reader of the Punjab State Electricity Board showing the consumption of 64 units. Moreover, it has been shown that on 17.3.1984, the meter reading was recorded by Ravinder Kumar, Meter Reader of the Punjab State Electricity Board showing the consumption of 64 units. The meter reading as taken earlier on 19.1.1984. It becomes obvious that the meter consumed electricity which would show that the demised premises were under use. It has also been found that from 16.4.1984 till 31.7.1984, although a lock was put on the premises by the State Bank of Patiala but the demised premises remained open in between. A perusal of para 3 of the judgment passed by the Rent controller shows that goods were sold on 20.6.1984, 2.7.1984, 3.7.1984, 28.7.1984 and 30.7.1984. It has thus become absolutely clear that the shop has remained open between the period from 16.4.1984 to 30.7.1984 and the tenant-respondent did not cease to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months. It has also been found that the conditions in Punjab during the relevant period, remained disturbed and the city of Ferozepur where the demised premises are situated remained under curfew off and on. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be concluded that firstly the demised premises remained closed for a continuous period of four months without a sufficient reason; secondly, it was not a voluntary act on the part of the tenant-respondent. 8. I am further of the view that the basic object for making provision under Section 13(2)(v) of the Act was that no tenant should be able to occupy the tenanted premises without using the same because it would be depriving the landlord or any other person interested in using the premises. The object does not seem to be to throw away a tenant in the circumstances where by a third intervention the demised premises has been scaled. Even otherwise, both the Courts below have concurrently found the absence of evidence showing ceasing of occupation of the premises for a continuous period of four months. In any case, there is sufficient justification proved by the tenant-respondent in support of the contention that there was reasonable cause for the tenant-respondent not to occupy the demised premises in respect of the period which is far less than four months. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act. 9. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act. 9. The argument that the building was occupied by Rajinder Kumar son of Des Raj, has failed to impress me because Rajinder Kumar was also the son of Des Raj, the original tenant. He was also entitled to be the tenant in the demised premises as was his other brother Yog Raj, tenant-respondent 1. Therefore, occupation of the demised premises cither by Yog Raj, tenant-respondent or by Rajinder Kumar, now represented by his legal representatives namely respondent 2, 3, 4 and 5, would not make any difference. Even otherwise, no such ground has been set up which may warrant detailed consideration in this petition. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting the argument raised. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.