Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1616 (PNJ)

Charan Singh v. Sarita Paul

2014-11-25

SURINDER GUPTA

body2014
Surinder Gupta, J. 1. The revision petitioner was a tenant under the respondent in premises bearing No. B-1X-120 situated at Basti Road, Basti Adda, Jalandhar City. The respondent-landlady filed a petition under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking the ejectment of revision petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and that he has ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of ten years without any reasonable or sufficient cause. The revision petitioner-tenant in his reply denied the averments of the respondent-landlady. 2. Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of issues as follows:-- "(1) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since Nov. 2000 at the rate of ` 150/- per month? OPA (2) Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the shop in question for the period of ten years continuously without any reasonable and sufficient cause? OPR (3) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR (4) Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and petitioner had concealed the material facts from the Court? OPR (5) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR (6) Whether the site plan attached with the petition is not correct? OPR (7) Relief." 3. Issue No. 1 was not pressed by the respondent-landlord while issues No. 3 to 6 were not pressed by the revision petitioner-tenant and were decided accordingly. While recording findings on issue No. 2, learned Rent Controller observed as follows:-- "So, I hold that the respondent has sized (sic ceased) to occupy the premises in question and hence, is entitled to be evicted from the suit property." 4. The revision petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period often years without any reasonable cause. Not satisfied with the order of Rent Controller, revision petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have perused the paper book with his assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the fact which weighed before Rent Controller and Appellate Authority leading to the presumption that tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises, was non-consumption of electricity in the same for a long period. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the fact which weighed before Rent Controller and Appellate Authority leading to the presumption that tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises, was non-consumption of electricity in the same for a long period. The mere non-consumption of electricity is no reason to conclude that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises. To support his contention, he has relied upon the observations of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case Sohan Lal and am. v. Gurbachan Singh, 1989(2) R.C.R (Rent) 363 : 1989(2) PLR 478. 7. Before the Rent Controller, respondent-landlady had examined the official of the Electricity Board, who had produced the summoned record and stated that from 6th May 2001 to December 2003 as per the official report, reading of the electricity meter was at 2900. Respondent-landlady also examined Gaurav Bhandari PW3, who had been passing from the site where the shop in dispute was situated everyday and stated that shop remained closed and he had never seen any business or work being carried out there. The landlord also examined Kulwant Kaur, who is also resident of Basti Road, Jalandhar and has stated that her residence is next to the demised shop which revision petitioner-tenant has ceased to occupy without any reasonable or sufficient cause for the last ten years prior to the filing of the petition. 8. On the other hand, respondent himself appeared as R.W. 1 and has stated that he is in the business of manufacturing trolleys and uses the demised shop as his office. Then he rectified himself by stating that he does the repair work in the demised shop and has limited his working hours from 11.00 AM to 04.00 PM. He examined Manjit Singh R.W. 2 and Jaspal Singh R.W. 3 to support his case. 9. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has not produced on file any document, account books, bills of purchase of material to prove his contention that he is doing any job in the demised premises. It is not believable that a person is carrying out business of repair of trolleys or even having his office but using no electricity. For repair of trolleys, the revision petitioner must have been purchasing some material from the market and could produce the bills of the same. It is not believable that a person is carrying out business of repair of trolleys or even having his office but using no electricity. For repair of trolleys, the revision petitioner must have been purchasing some material from the market and could produce the bills of the same. It is nowhere case of the revision petitioner that the electric meter installed in the demised premises was defective. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority have rightly relied upon the testimony of next door neighbor and the person residing in the nearby locality while reaching the conclusion that the revision petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period or more than four months to make out a ground for his ejectment as per provisions of Section 13(2)(v) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Coupled with the above statements, non-consumption of electricity is also a very relevant and material factor to reach the conclusion that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises. The observations made in case of Sohan Lal and anr. (supra), are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the meter-reader had been continuously going to the shop and taking the meter reading. In this case, the official of the Electricity Board has proved that there was no consumption of electricity for the last many years. On the other hand, revision petitioner-tenant has submitted while appearing as R.W. 1 that he is in possession of bills of payment of electricity but has failed to produce the same to prove that he has not ceased to occupy the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority have not reached the conclusion solely on the basis of non-consumption of electricity that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises. This has rather corroborated the oral statements of respondent-landlord and her witnesses. 10. Both the Courts below have analyzed the statements of the witnesses and the evidence produced on record while reaching the conclusion that the revision petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised premises. The findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority are neither perverse nor factually or legally incorrect calling for interference in this revision petition. 11. 10. Both the Courts below have analyzed the statements of the witnesses and the evidence produced on record while reaching the conclusion that the revision petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised premises. The findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority are neither perverse nor factually or legally incorrect calling for interference in this revision petition. 11. In case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, 2014(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 162 : 2014(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 210 : 2014(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 692 :2014(9) SCC 78, while defining the scope of interference with finding of learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority in revision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-- "We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity." As a sequel of my discussion above, I find no merits in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.