Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 361 (PNJ)

Mulakh Raj v. Sushma Kumari

2013-03-19

Jaswant Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.:- Petitioners(tenants) are in revision under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the findings returned by learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, who vide its order dated 02.02.2013 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent(landlady) Sushma Kumari on the ground of cease to occupy and consequently reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, who had dismissed the ejectment application of the respondent landlady vide order dated 12.08.2011. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlady) had filed an ejectment application against the petitioners(tenants) on various grounds, including the ground of cease to occupy the premises by giving a reasoning that since September 2007 no business is being run by the tenant no.1/petitioner no.1 and, therefore, he has rendered himself liable for ejectment on the ground of non occupation of the premises as mentioned under Section 13 of the Act. 3. Upon notice, petitioners(tenants) denied all the material averments and prayed for the dismissal of the ejectment application. 4. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead evidence and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur dismissed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were reversed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur. Hence the present revision petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) has argued that the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur has wrongly allowed the ejectment application of the respondent(landlady) on the ground of ceased to occupy the premises for the last more than 4 months, without considering the fact that it is not proved on record that the petitioners were not occupying the premises for the last four months. It was argued that the learned Appellate Authority has wrongly observed that since in the electricity bills, there is no consumption of electricity reflected from May 2007 to 22.02.2008 i.e. for a period of 10 months, therefore, it is presumed that the petitioners have ceased to occupy the suit premises, as the kind of business that was being run by the petitioners(tenants) did not require any electricity because they were doing the business of dying Chunnies, turban etc. Hence, prayer was made for the dismissal of the ejectment application and consequently, allowing of the present revision. Hence, prayer was made for the dismissal of the ejectment application and consequently, allowing of the present revision. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) and having gone through the case file carefully, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. A perusal of the paper book reveals that in order to prove the ground of cease to occupy the premises, the respondent(landlady) had examined Smt. Resham Kaur as AW-2 who is the official from the electricity department. This witness had stated that the meter has been installed in the name of Vinod Kumar Lalari Di Hatti and as per her record, no electricity was being consumed in that shop and in the month of May 2007 the meter reading of 2766 continued upto 02.02.2008. Furthermore, RW-3 Ashwani Kumar(petitioner no.2) stated that bills regarding electricity consumption of the shop in question are in their possession. However, the said bills have not been proved by them in the court and thus, the best evidence was withheld by the petitioners(tenants) so as to show that electricity was being consumed in the shop in question and its charges were being paid by them. Not only this, AW-2 Resham Kaur, had also stated that in the month of March 2007, it has been recorded in her official register that the meter is locked. It was also stated by this witness that continuance of the reading from March 2007 till 02.02.2008 and mentioning of meter as locked in the month of March 2007 means that no electricity was being consumed in that shop. It was also stated by this witness that the above said entry i.e. lock continued upto October 2008 and in month of December 2008 the meter reading was 2807. Present petition for ejectment was filed by the respondent(landlady) on 18.11.2008 and till that time there is nothing on record to show that there was any consumption of electricity by the petitioners(tenants) for the past four months from the inception of the present ejectment application. 8. Present petition for ejectment was filed by the respondent(landlady) on 18.11.2008 and till that time there is nothing on record to show that there was any consumption of electricity by the petitioners(tenants) for the past four months from the inception of the present ejectment application. 8. Non consumption of electricity in a commercial premises goes a long way to prove a fact that the premises was not being occupied by a tenant because electricity is required in day to day course of business and when it has been specifically mentioned by the electricity department in its noting that the premises stood locked from March 2007 till October 2008, a necessary inference has to be drawn in favour of the landlady and against the tenant to the effect that the tenants were not occupying the premises for the past four months, preceding the date of filing the ejectment petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Geeta Bhalla & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar(dead) through Lrs. 2006(2) RCR 379 to say that onus is on the landlord to prove the fact of cease to occupy the premises and no adverse inference can be drawn against the tenant who is a petty shopkeeper, who had failed to produce electricity bills and account books. However, this judgment is not applicable to the fact and circumstances of the case in hand because this Court is not only non suiting the petitioners(tenants) on the ground that the electricity bills were not produced but also on the ground that as per the PSEB official examined as AW-2, the meter reading reflected meter as locked from March 2007 till October 2008. Hence, the said judgment is completely distinguishable on facts. 9. No other point was urged before me during the course of arguments. 10. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————