Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2008 (PNJ)

Prem Nath v. Shadilal Tayal

2007-11-16

SHAM SUNDER

body2007
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This instant revision petition, has been preferred, by the tenant-petitioner, against the judgment dated 2.5.1990, rendered by the Appellate Authority (District Judge, Faridkot) vide which the judgment dated 26.8.1987, rendered by the Rent Controller, Moga, was set aside and the ejectment of the tenant, was ordered, on the ground, that he had ceased to occupy the demised premises, without any sufficient cause, for a continuous period of four months, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. 2. Prem Nath was inducted, as a tenant, in the demised premises, as fully detailed, in the ejectment petition, at a monthly rental of Rs. 210/-. The ejectment of the tenant, was sought, from the demised premises, on the grounds that he had been in arrears of rent since 1.4.1974, and that he had ceased to occupy the same, without any sufficient cause, for a continuous period of four months, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. On the failure of the tenant, to vacate the demised premises, the ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be called as the `Act only)was filed. 3. The tenant, put in appearance, and filed written statement wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the petition. It was pleaded that the site plan furnished by the landlord, was not correct. It was further pleaded that since the ejectment petition earlier filed, by the landlord, was dismissed by the Rent Controller, the subsequent ejectment petition was not maintainable. It was denied that he was inducted, as a tenant, at a monthly rental of Rs. 210/-. On the other hand, it was stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month. It was further stated that rent upto 30.5.1984, had already been paid, whereas, the rent from 1.7.1984 to 31.1.1985, was tendered, on the first date of hearing, along with interest, and costs. It was denied that he ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of four months, without any sufficient cause, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck : "1. Whether the petitioner rented out the demised shop at Rs. 210/- per month as alleged ? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1974 as alleged ? OPA 3. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck : "1. Whether the petitioner rented out the demised shop at Rs. 210/- per month as alleged ? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1974 as alleged ? OPA 3. Whether the shop is lying closed for a continuous period of four months as alleged in para No. 3 ? OPA 4. Relief." 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the Rent Controller, held that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month, and not Rs. 210/- per month. It was further held that the tender made by the tenant, on the first date of hearing, was valid. The Rent Controller further held that the tenant had not ceased to occupy the demised premises, for a continuous period of four months, without any sufficient cause, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. Ultimately, the ejectment petition was dismissed vide order dated 26.8.1987 by the Rent Controller. 6. Feeling aggrieved against, the judgment dated 26.8.1987, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority, which was accepted vide judgment dated 2.5.1990, by it. 7. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 2.5.1990, rendered by the Appellate Authority, the instant revision petition was filed. 8. I have heard teamed counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, vehemently, contended that the approach of the Appellate Authority, in holding that the tenant-petitioner ceased to occupy the demised premises, for a continuous period of four months, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition, without any sufficient cause, was wholly illegal, being not based on the correct reading and appreciation of evidence. He further contended that it was stated by the landlord,in his statement, that the tenant was sitting idle which meant that he was still occupying the demised premises, and had not ceased to occupy the same, for a continuous period of four months, without any sufficient cause, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. He further contended that even the Appellate Authority, did not take into consideration, the conduct of the landlord, which was mala fide. He further contended that the finding of the Appellate Authority, is based on surmises and conjectures. He further contended that even the Appellate Authority, did not take into consideration, the conduct of the landlord, which was mala fide. He further contended that the finding of the Appellate Authority, is based on surmises and conjectures. He further contended that, as such, the judgment of the Appellate Authority, was liable to be set aside. 10. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that the Appellate Authority, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises, for a continuous period of four months, immediately before the filing of the ejectment petition, without any sufficient cause, on the basis of the evidence produced on record. He further contended that there was no admission on the part of the landlord, in his statement, recorded by the Rent Controller, that the tenant was sitting idle, in the shop and had not ceased to occupy the same, for a continuous period of four months, without any sufficient cause, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. He further contended that the judgment of the Appellate Authority, is not based on the incorrect reading and appreciation of evidence. He further contended that the findings of the Appellate Authority, to the effect, that the tenant ceased to occupy the demised premises, for a continuous period of four months, immediately preceding the filing of ejectment petition, without any sufficient cause, are neither illegal nor perverse. 11. After having perused the judgment of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, on the basis of the evidence produced, in my opinion, the Appellate Authority was right in coming to the conclusion, that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises, for a continuous period of four months, without any sufficient cause, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. Shadi Lal landlord, while appearing as PW-1 in no unambiguous terms, deposed that the shop, in dispute, had been lying closed continuously since 1.6.1984. He also proved the electricity bills Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P- 3. The statement of Shadi Lal, was duly corroborated by Des Raj, PW2, whose shop adjoins the shop in dispute. He, in clear cut terms, deposed that no business had been done, in the shop, in dispute since June, 1984 and the same had been lying closed since then. He also proved the electricity bills Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P- 3. The statement of Shadi Lal, was duly corroborated by Des Raj, PW2, whose shop adjoins the shop in dispute. He, in clear cut terms, deposed that no business had been done, in the shop, in dispute since June, 1984 and the same had been lying closed since then. No doubt, Prem Kumar, tenant RW-1, stated that he did not cease to occupy the demised premises. It may be stated here, that men may lie, but the documents and circumstances dont. No question, was put to Shadi Lal landlord, when he appeared as, PW-2, to dispute the veracity and the authenticity of` the electricity bills Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3, in respect of the demised premises. Even no question, was put to landlord, during the course of cross-examination, that the shop had not been lying closed since 1.6.1984. There is a stray sentence, in the cross-examination of the landlord, that Prem Nath was sitting idle. It is not known, as to in which context, this part of the statement was made by the landlord, during the course of cross-examination, that the tenant used to sit, in the demised premises, but on account of slump, in his business, he remained idle, and if he (landlord) had admitted the same, to be correct, the matter would have been different. Only one sentence, stated by the landlord, in his cross- examination, that the tenant was sitting idle, could not be stretched, to such an extent, as to come to the conclusion, that he (tenant) had not ceased to occupy the premises, without any sufficient cause, since June 1984. Even the statement of Des Raj (PW-2) to the extent, that no business had been run in the demised premises since June, 1984, by the tenant, was not challenged during his cross-examination. Ex.P-1, electricity bill, in respect of the demised shop was issued in the beginning of July, 1984. According to this bill, there was consumption of 106 units. The said reading must have been taken either in the month of May or June, 1984 Ex.P-2, the electricity bill was issued in November, .1984. According to this bill, there was no consumption of electricity. Ex.P-3, another electricity bill, was issued in the month of April, 1985. According to this bill, there was consumption of 9 unit. The said reading must have been taken either in the month of May or June, 1984 Ex.P-2, the electricity bill was issued in November, .1984. According to this bill, there was no consumption of electricity. Ex.P-3, another electricity bill, was issued in the month of April, 1985. According to this bill, there was consumption of 9 unit. Ex.P-2, the electricity bill relates to the relevant period, according to which, there was no consumption of electricity, in the shop, for a continuous period of more than four months. It was summer season. The tenant must be using, at least a fan, as a bare necessity, in the shop. Had the shop been not lying closed, and had the tenant not ceased to occupy the same, for a continuous period of four months, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition, there must have been reasonable consumption of electricity, during the summer months. No doubt, the tenant could prove by placing, on record, some material, in the shape of evidence, that during this period, the meter remained dead, or that he had gone to a pilgrimage, or to some other place, on account of some unforeseen circumstances, for a few months, and, therefore, he could not sit in the shop, and use the electricity and, thus, there was no consumption. However, he miserably failed to produce any such evidence, on record. There is nothing, on the record, to prove as to which business was being run by the tenant, in the shop in question. Copies of ledgers Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5, for some period, were placed on record, wherefrom, it could not be ascertained, as to whether, any business was transacted, in the shop, in question, during the period, in dispute. No bills were produced, on record, by the tenant, to prove that he purchased some material for sale, in the shop, or for use in his business. No bill or receipt was produced by the tenant, to prove that he sold some material to the customers or that, he repaired or welded, the articles of some customers during the period in question. No customer was also produced, to prove that he purchased some material, from the shop, in question, from the tenant during the relevant period. No bill or receipt was produced by the tenant, to prove that he sold some material to the customers or that, he repaired or welded, the articles of some customers during the period in question. No customer was also produced, to prove that he purchased some material, from the shop, in question, from the tenant during the relevant period. Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5, copies of the ledgers, therefore, do not prove that the shop, in question, was not lying closed or that the tenant had not ceased to occupy the same, for a continuous period of four months, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition, without any sufficient cause. In Harbans Lal v. Bhim Sain etc., 1977 C.L.J. (Civil) 259, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that, in case, the witness is not cross- examined regarding a particular part of the statement, by the other party, then that part of his statement, in the examination-in-chief, would be deemed to be correct. In Ram Lok v. Tarloki Nath, (2000-2)125 PLR 713, it was proved that the premises were locked for one year and two months. The tenant had surrendered his sales tax number. No other document or books, showing the business transactions held in the suit premises, were produced. In these circumstances, it was held by this Court, that it was proved that the tenant ceased to occupy the demised premises, for a continuous period of four months, without any sufficient cause, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. The facts of the instant petition, are somewhat similar to the facts of Ram Loks case (supra). The statement of the Prem Nath coupled with the statement of RW-2, to the effect that he never ceased to occupy the demised premises, was rightly held to be unbelievable. The Appellate Authority, in my opinion, was thus right in holding that the tenant ceased to occupy the demised premises, for a continuous period of four months, without any sufficient cause, immediately before the filing of the ejectment petition. The findings of the Appellate Authority, on the said issue, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner, being without merit, must fail and stands rejected. 12. The findings of the Appellate Authority, on the said issue, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner, being without merit, must fail and stands rejected. 12. Coming to the conduct of the landlord, it may be stated here, that during the course of cross-examination, no doubt, it was stated by him that he allowed the accumulation of arrears of rent, on the ground, that the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises, may be easy. The mere fact that the landlord allowed the accumulation of arrears of rent, did not mean that his conduct was mala fide. In case, the landlord did not demand the rent, from the tenant, for a number of years, he could deposit the same, in accordance with the provisions of law, in the Court of the Rent Controller, from time to time. He could also send the same through money order to the landlord, or could deposit the same, in his account. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the conduct, of the tenant was such, as could dis-entitle him, to the grant of relief of ejectment, on the ground, that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises, for a continuous period of four months, immediately before the filing of the ejectment petition, without any sufficient cause. The contention of the learned Counsel, for the petitioner, being devoid of merit stands rejected. 13. The landlord claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 210/- per month, whereas the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, held that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month. If the landlord was disbelieved, on one aspect of the matter, that did not mean that his statement could not be believed, qua the other ground. Mere rejection of the evidence of the landlord, qua one ground of ejectment, did not prove that his conduct was mala fide. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, being also devoid of merit, is rejected. 14. In view of the reasons recorded herein before, the revision-petition, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. The tenant shall hand over the vacant physical possession of the demised premises, to the landlord, if he has already not handed over the same to him, within a period of two months from today.