Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. In the present revision petition, on 19.5.2009, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:- "...Respondent has been served. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Party called absent is, therefore, proceeded against ex-parte. To come up for consideration on 21.7.2009". 2. The respondent was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.7.2009, had directed that service be effected upon the respondent. On 24.2.2010, this Court passed the following order:- "...As per the report made by the Registry, the respondent refused to accept the service. The factual position apparent from the report of the Process Server is as under: "On 15.02.2010, the Process Server went over to the indicated place. Someone answered the call and came out of the house to inform that the Process Server should wait and that (the former) would go inside and showed the process to "Ahuja Sahib" (the reference is obviously to Darshan Lal Ahuja). That person came out of the house after a short while and informed the Process Server that the summons is not to be accepted. That person did not tell his name to the Process Server". In the circumstances of the case, this service cannot be treated to be sufficient in character. Issue notice afresh to the respondent by registered post as well, besides through the ordinary process. Liberty is granted to serve through the counsel who represented the respondent before the learned Trial Court too. Dasti as well. List on 11.03.2010". 3. Thereafter, on 11.3.2010, it was ordered that contesting respondent Darshan Lal Ahuja be served by publication of notice in any national newspaper having wide circulation at Delhi. A Court Notice had been published in the "Sandhya Times, New Delhi". It is reflected in the order passed by this Court on 23.4.2010. Thereafter, Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. On July 23, 2010, learned counsel for the respondent Sh. Sinhal sought a date. On August 20, 2010, an adjournment slip was circulated. Today, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he has not been authorized by the respondent to appear on his behalf, in the present case. 4. In these circumstances, it can be safely said that the service has been effected upon the respondent by way of publication. However, Mr. On August 20, 2010, an adjournment slip was circulated. Today, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he has not been authorized by the respondent to appear on his behalf, in the present case. 4. In these circumstances, it can be safely said that the service has been effected upon the respondent by way of publication. However, Mr. Sinhal has not caused appearance for the respondent. Hence, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 5. Petitioner/landlord Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the Sabha") as per its Constitution (Ex.P4), is engaged in propagating vedic religion and publication of the literature based on Vedas. Another objective, noticed in its Constitution, is to establish libraries containing books of vedic religion and to establish hospitals and dispensaries to cure the ailments of the sick and disabled persons. The Sabha through its authorized representative had instituted an eviction petition on 23.1.1999. In the eviction petition, it was stated that vide lease deed dated 1.4.1969 (Ex.P4), the land was leased out to the respondent/tenant at the rate of Rs.4,400/- per year. The area of the land was eight kanals, which adjoins Gurukul Inderprastha in Faridabad The following grounds were pleaded to cause eviction of the tenant:- A) The tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises as he closed his business of stone crushing for about three years and the land is lying vacant. B) The land is required by the Gurukul Inderprastha for its own use and occupation. C) The respondent failed to pay the rent for about one year. 6. The respondent/tenant filed reply to the eviction petition, wherein he denied the assertion of the landlord that the demised premises has been lying closed for about three years. It was pleaded that he has been doing the business of stone breaking and storing of stones in the tenanted premises. The ground of personal necessity was also denied The Rent Controller, Faridabad, formulated the following issues, after the pleading were concluded:- "1. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises-in-question for the last more than four months, if so, to what effect? OPP. 2. Whether the tenanted premises is liable to be vacated on the ground of bonafide requirements of the petitioner? OPP. 3. Whether the petition has not been filed by properly authorised person? OPR 4. Relief. 7. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises-in-question for the last more than four months, if so, to what effect? OPP. 2. Whether the tenanted premises is liable to be vacated on the ground of bonafide requirements of the petitioner? OPP. 3. Whether the petition has not been filed by properly authorised person? OPR 4. Relief. 7. The representative of the landlord namely Kedar Singh appeared as PW.1, who stated that the respondent was running a Stone Crusher about three/four years ago. The Stone Crusher was closed and the land is lying vacant. He further stated that the land was required by Gurukul Inderprashta for expansion of the works undertaken by it. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not remember the year and the month as to when the tenant had stopped working in the demised premises. He denied the suggestion that even after shifting of the Stone Crusher, the respondent has been continuing breaking the stones manually at the demised premises. He also denied the suggestion that the Sabha, for the expansion of its business, has not made any development plan. PW.2 Hukam Chand was also examined by the landlord. This witness stated that the rooms, constructed on the site, became ruins (Khander). He further denied the suggestion that the tenant was manually breaking the stones at the site. He volunteered to state that the site has been lying vacant and no labour was found by him when he went to prepare the site plan. Thereafter, the landlord closed its evidence. 8. Thereafter, the respondent/tenant appeared as RW.1 and admitted that after the orders, passed by the Honble Apex Court in the year 1992, he had shifted his business of Stone Crusher from the site in dispute. He further stated that at the site, the work of breaking stones manually is continuing. He further stated that he built quarters for the labourers at the site. In cross-examination, when he was asked as to from where the stones were brought, he stated that wherever the stones are available, the same are purchased and brought at the site. Then he further stated that the stones are brought from Arampur, Pali etc. From Pali, the stones were bought from Sethi. He stated that parchi was issued in the name of lease holder and they used to give money to the lessee and to the Contractor also. Then he further stated that the stones are brought from Arampur, Pali etc. From Pali, the stones were bought from Sethi. He stated that parchi was issued in the name of lease holder and they used to give money to the lessee and to the Contractor also. He feigned ignorance regarding the name of Contractor. He further stated that they used to hire the vehicle and whatever vehicle was available was engaged. He further stated that he could not tell the weight of the stone. He further stated that eight/ten persons of labour and a Chowkidar were employed. One person do the work of breaking the stones. He stated that his business of stone crushing is at a small level. He was unable to state the size of the Stone Crusher. He stated that at the demised premises, quarters for labour, an office and a room for Chowkidar were there. The labour used to stay there. Then he stated that he could not state the name of any person from labour as they used to change. Then he stated that the labourers namely Arjun Singh, Ganga Ram and Amar etc. were from Bihar. Except the tenant himself, no other witness was examined. 9. The Rent Controller, regarding the issue as to whether the tenant ceased to occupy the premises or not, gave a finding that since the exact date and month could not be disclosed by the landlord, therefore, it cannot be said that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises. The finding of the Rent Controller is in para Nos.21 and 22 of the impugned judgment, which read as under:- "...21. After going through the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent and also going through the case law, I am of the view that petitioner was duty bound to prove that the premises was not possessed by the respondent and the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises-in-question. It is stated by the petitioner that he is not aware about the exact date when the respondent ceased to occupy the land. 22. Therefore, it is not established by the landlord by positive evidence that tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises for continuous period of four months. Mere fact that tenant was doing any other business cannot prove the fact that he has ceased to occupy the premises in dispute. 22. Therefore, it is not established by the landlord by positive evidence that tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises for continuous period of four months. Mere fact that tenant was doing any other business cannot prove the fact that he has ceased to occupy the premises in dispute. The petitioner has not filed any application for appointment of Local Commissioner to inspect the demised premises. Therefore, the report regarding existing condition of the tenanted premises was not determined and established and onus was on the petitioner to prove that respondent has ceased to occupy the premises in dispute but the petitioner has not led any positive evidence in his favour to prove this fact that the tenanted premises was not occupied by the respondent for continuous period of four months. Therefore, it would not be safe to eject the tenant on this ground and no eviction order can be passed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent". 10. Regarding the ground of personal necessity, it was stated that the petitioner- Sabha has 150 different tenants and half of the land is still lying vacant, therefore, this ground was declined. 11. Aggrieved against the order, passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner/landlord has filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, Faridabad, concurred with the findings given by the Rent Controller. 12. From the perusal of evidence, it cannot be said that the finding, recorded by both the Courts below, is sustainable in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the respondent, on the leased land, was carrying on the business of Stone Crusher. In the year 1992, the Honble Apex Court, vide order dated 15.5.1992, had prohibited the operation of Stone Crushers. For rehabilitation of the Stone Crushers, a separate land was carved out in Palli Zone. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent/tenant succeeded in the draw of lots and has been allotted an alternative site for establishing his business. 13. Be that as it may, PW.2 Hukam Chand has stated in the categoric terms that no labour was found at the spot when he went for preparing a site plan and the rooms constructed at the spot have become ruins. Furthermore, the tenant has raised a plea that he has been manually breaking the stones at the demised premises. 13. Be that as it may, PW.2 Hukam Chand has stated in the categoric terms that no labour was found at the spot when he went for preparing a site plan and the rooms constructed at the spot have become ruins. Furthermore, the tenant has raised a plea that he has been manually breaking the stones at the demised premises. Whether that is a viable business or not, this Court will not examine the same. But suffice it to say that the tenant has failed to disclose the name of any labourer. He is also not aware as to in which vehicle the stones were transported. The tenant is evasive regarding payment made for purchase of stones. He stated that the payment was made in cash. The name of the Contractor to whom the payment was made is also not known to him. He has also no knowledge about the weight and size of the stones. He stated that one man was hired to break the stones, though eight labourers and one Chowkidar were working at the site. The tenant has also not disclosed as to whether there is any electricity connection or as to what is the consumption of the electricity. The tenant has also not stated anything regarding the account books and turn over of the business. It seems that the tenant had shifted the Stone Crusher to the allotted site and he is just hanging on the land, which was leased out by the petitioner-Sabha. The plea coined that heavy stones were manually broken by hiring one labourer in modern times look unnatural, improbable and unconvincing. 14. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the eviction petition, filed by the petitioner/landlord, is allowed. The tenant is granted two months time to vacate the demised premises.