Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 629 (PNJ)

Ganesh Kumar v. Swami Viveka Nand Ji Maharaj

2012-04-25

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral);— Ganesh Kumar legal representative of original tenant Lal Chand since deceased has filed this revision petition under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) assailing judgment dated 14.3.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar as Appellate Authority under the Act. 2. Respondent – landlord filed ejectment petition under section 13 of the Act against Lal Chand predecessor of petitioner herein. It is undisputed that Lal Chand was tenant in the demised shop under the landlord-respondent herein. Ejectment was sought on the ground of nonpayment of rent and on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised shop continuously for a period of more than four months without reasonable and sufficient cause, having ceased to occupy the same since 1.4.1999. 3. The tenant while admitting the tenancy controverted the grounds of ejectment. 4. Due rent was tendered along with cost and interest. It was denied that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop. It was pleaded that he was carrying on business of readymade garments in the demised shop. 5. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 17.3.2008 dismissed the ejectment petition. However, appeal preferred by landlord against order of Rent Controller has been allowed by learned Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dated 14.3.2009 which is under challenge in this revision petition at the instance of legal representative of the tenant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even Ashok Chawla AW5 attorney of the landlord admitted that the tenant used to open the shop once or twice in a month and therefore, it cannot be said that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised shop as alleged by the landlord. It was also contended that temporary closure of the demised premises is not sufficient to order ejectment of the tenant on this ground. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Chaudhary Sunder Lal vs. Ram Sarup, 1999(2) RCR 207 and Kedar Nath vs. Rattan Chand, 1999(2) RCR 444. It was also argued that non consumption of electricity is also not sufficient to hold that the tenant has ceased to occupy demised premises. 8. It was also argued that non consumption of electricity is also not sufficient to hold that the tenant has ceased to occupy demised premises. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the landlord contended that the tenant alleged that he was carrying on business of readymade garments but the said business required the dealer to obtain sales tax licence. However, the tenant did not produce any such record that he had sales tax licence to carry on business of readymade garments. It was also contended that the tenant has also not produced any document on record regarding purchase and sale of readymade garments or any other document in this regard. It was also submitted that without electricity connection in the demised shop, the tenant could not have carried on business of readymade garments. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 10. The tenant did everything after filing of ejectment petition to undo the ground of ejectment pleaded by the landlord that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised shop since 1.4.1999 without any reasonable and sufficient cause. The ejectment petition was filed on 13.8.2002. It has come in evidence of Amrita RW1 official of Electricity Board that thereafter the tenant filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 3.1.2003 which was allowed on 8.10.2003 for grant of electric connection in the demised premises. Admittedly, the demised shop had been let out to the tenant on 1.2.1997. Thus for almost six years the tenant took no step to get electricity connection in demised shop. However, he started taking action after the ejectment petition was filed. Even thereafter when the said complaint was allowed by District Consumer Forum vide order dated 8.10.2003, the tenant did not immediately thereafter approach the Electricity Board for grant of electric connection in the demised shop. Amrita RW1 has stated that application by tenant's son Ganesh Kumar petitioner herein was moved for the first time on 16.2.2005 for grant of electricity connection and the same was granted on 23.2.2005. Thus, tenant remained silent for 14 months even after requisite order was passed in his favour by the District Consumer Forum. It is correct that mere non-consumption of electricity may not be sufficient to hold that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises. However, this is one of the material circumstances which goes to establish this fact. 11. Thus, tenant remained silent for 14 months even after requisite order was passed in his favour by the District Consumer Forum. It is correct that mere non-consumption of electricity may not be sufficient to hold that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises. However, this is one of the material circumstances which goes to establish this fact. 11. The contention that Ashwani Kumar AW5 has stated that the tenant opens the shop once or twice a month would not show that the tenant has not ceased to occupy the demised shop. On the other hand, this circumstance rather establishes that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised shop and he started opening it once or twice a month simply to disprove the ground of ejectment pleaded by the landlord in this regard. According to the landlord, the tenant ceased to occupy the demised shop since 1.4.1999. The landlord waited for more than three years before filing of ejectment petition on 13.8.2002. Consequently, in this case it cannot be said that it was temporary closure of the demised shop by the tenant. Therefore, judgments in the cases of Chaudhary Sunder Lal (supra) and Kedar Nath (supra) have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 12. It is also significant to notice that business of readymade garments requires sales tax licence but the tenant did not lead any documentary evidence to depict that he had obtained any such licence to carry on said business nor the tenant produced any documentary evidence regarding the said business including the invoices regarding sale or purchase of garments. It would depict that the tenant was not carrying on any business in the demised shop. This material circumstance further corroborates the version of the landlord. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the Appellate Authority has rightly held that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised shop for more than four months preceding the filing of the ejectment petition without any sufficient cause and therefore, the tenant is liable to ejectment from the demised shop on this ground. Finding of the Appellate Authority to this effect is not shown to be suffering from any perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Finding of the Appellate Authority to this effect is not shown to be suffering from any perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.