Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1410 (PNJ)

Surinder Singh v. Gurbachan Singh

2013-10-25

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL) This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order dated 20.02.2010 of Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby his eviction has been ordered and further the judgment dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar dismissing his appeal. Suffice it to say, eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of non-payment of rent and that he has ceased to occupy the demised premises. So far as eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent is concerned, it may be noticed that the respondent claimed rent @ Rs. 140 per month with effect from July 1989. It may be noticed that rate of rent was not disputed by the petitioner. On 10.12.2001 when petitioner appeared, the Court assessed the costs at Rs. 200 and granted opportunity to tender the rent @ Rs. 140 per month. However, petitioner tendered rent @ Rs. 140 per month with effect from 01.04.2000 to 30.11.2001 and no explanation was submitted regarding the rent for the period with effect from July 1989 upto 31.03.2000, thus the petitioner failed to tender the due amount on the first date of hearing as envisaged under the Act. It is well settled that payment of rent is to be proved by the tenant. In the instant case petitioner has made an effort to prove the payment of rent for the said period from receipt Ex.R-74 to Ex.R-138. However, these receipts are in Urdu and remained unproved as RW-2 Jagdish Sharma, who allegedly proved Punjabi script of the original receipts, admitted that he does not know Urdu language. Neither the scribe of the said receipts has proved the receipts nor the true translation of Urdu receipts has been proved as per High Court rules. Thus, payment of rent for the said period remained unproved and no fault can be found with the same. After claiming to have paid the rent for the period in dispute and failing to prove the same, petitioner was not entitled to any further opportunity to make up deficiency of rent after final decision. At this stage, the relevant findings of the Rent Controller regarding the ground of ‘cease to occupy’ may also be noticed which read thus : “15. Coming to the next ground whether respondent has ceased to occupy the shop in question without any reasonable and sufficient cause. At this stage, the relevant findings of the Rent Controller regarding the ground of ‘cease to occupy’ may also be noticed which read thus : “15. Coming to the next ground whether respondent has ceased to occupy the shop in question without any reasonable and sufficient cause. For that purpose, I like to refer the evidence of applicant i.e. AW1 Gurdip Singh, who categorically deposed that he is living near the shop in dispute and has been seeing the shop almost daily and shop in dispute is lying closed for the last more than six years and respondent has not opened the shop for the said period and he has never seen him working in the shop in question after August 2000. Obviously, the said witness was cross-examined by counsel for the respondent, but no favourable word got from the mouth of said witness. To the contrary, the applicant himself appeared to prove these facts and respondent also appeared. Apart from that, the respondent also examined one independent witness i.e. RW3 Harjit Singh, but if we go through the cross-examination of RW3 Harjit Singh, then matter will itself clinch that which one of the witness is trustworthy witness. For that purpose, I like to refer the cross-examination of RW3 Harjit Singh, wherein he deposed that he is working in District Courts Complex, Amritsar as a clerk of Sh.Gurjit Singh Bal, Advocate. He comes to the Court at 9.30 A.M. and works till 4.30 and 5.00 P.M. and thereafter, he has to go the office of his Advocate and works there upto 10.00 P.M. So it means that he remains in the Court complex as well as office of his Advocate from 9.30 A.M. to 10.00 P.M., then how the deposition made in his affidavit is considered as trustworthy, wherein he stated that he has been seeing the respondent to close and open the shop daily. Because he go look at 10 PM and at 10 PM all the shops have been already closed at 8 PM. 16. Because he go look at 10 PM and at 10 PM all the shops have been already closed at 8 PM. 16. Apart from above factors, one thing is also very important in this case that there is no electricity connection in the demised shop, as alleged by the respondent, but I think in these advance days of life, no work can be completed without electricity and even he doing the work of manufacturing of Surf and for that purpose, electricity connection is very much necessary for light purpose and other business purpose. RW3 Harjit Singh admitted in his cross-examination that there is no electricity connection and even these factums have been also admitted by respondent Surinder Singh while appeared as RW4. Apart from that, he also deposed that he has not opened any account in any bank regarding his Surf manufacturing business. Even he has not kept any bill of his business. He has not maintained any account of his business. He does not take any bill from the persons of the firm, from whom, he purchased the raw material for manufacturing of Surf. He does not keep any account of his sales of Surf to any person and there is no electricity connection in his shop. So if collectively taken the above said replies of the respondent, then we can say without any hesitation that rulings referred by learned counsel for the applicant supra 2004(1) RCR 141 (P&H), 1999(2) RCR 423 (P&H) and 2003(1) RCR 584 (P&H) are apparently applicable in this case and it is established on the file that respondent has ceased to occupy the shop in question since August, 2000.” The aforesaid findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the Appellate Authority as under : “The record has shown that although RW3 Harjit Singh has deposed that the tenant Surinder Singh had not ceased to occupy the shop in question and had been regularly doing his business in the shop in question. But this witness has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he comes to the Court at 9.30 A.M. and works in the office of the advocate up to 10.00 P.M. Meaning thereby, he gets no opportunity for the whole day long to see as to whether the shop in question was being opened or not. But this witness has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he comes to the Court at 9.30 A.M. and works in the office of the advocate up to 10.00 P.M. Meaning thereby, he gets no opportunity for the whole day long to see as to whether the shop in question was being opened or not. Moreover, it is to be seen as to whether the appellant/tenant, was doing his business in the shop in dispute or not. It is an admitted fact that there is no electricity connection in the shop in dispute. The case of the appellant is that he manufactures surf in the shop in question, but the appellant has not placed on record any documentary proof to show that he was doing the business of manufacturing of surf in the shop in dispute. He has not produced any bills on record to show the purchase of raw material for manufacture of surf. He has also not placed any account books showing sale of surf to any person. Even otherwise also, had there been any commercial activity of manufacturing of surf in the shop in dispute, then the electricity connection would have been there in the shop. Even for bare sitting of the occupier of the shop, now-a-days, light and fan are considered to be basic necessities of a person to sit in a shop, especially in summer days. If the electricity connection is not there in shop, then the inference has to be drawn that the appellant was not occupying the shop in question. Thus, the learned Rent Controller has not committed any illegality in returning the findings to the effect that the tenant Surinder Singh has ceased to occupy the shop in question.” Though it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that from the evidence on record it is not proved that the petitioner-tenant has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute, however, it may be noticed that both the Authorities below, on appreciation of evidence on record, have recorded a concurrent finding that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute. It is not disputed before this Court that the question whether the petitioner has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute or not, is a question of fact. It is not disputed before this Court that the question whether the petitioner has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute or not, is a question of fact. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in ‘Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.’ 1998(2) RCR (Rent) 533 has authoritatively laid down that in a revision petition, the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence and reach to a different conclusion than the one taken by the Authorities below concurrently. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court and the concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities below, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant revision petition. Dismissed.