JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30-1-2010 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Alwar (hereinafter `the Appellate Tribunal') dismissing petitioner-non-applicant-tenant's (hereinafter `the tenant') statutory appeal and affirming the judgment of eviction against the tenant and certificate of possession dated 19-5-2007 passed in favour of the respondent-applicant-landlord (hereinafter `the landlord') by the Rent Tribunal Alwar (hereinafter `the Tribunal'). 2. The facts of the case are that the landlord Nanak Chand (deaf and dumb through next friend his own brother Saubhagya Chand) filed an application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter `the 2001 Act') against the tenant in respect of a shop situate at Kedalganj Alwar (hereinafter `the tenanted premises') stating that the shop was given out on rent to the tenant's father on 14-1-1963. Subsequent to death of his father the tenant continued in possession of the tenanted premises and was paying rent to the landlord, establishing landlord-tenant relationship between them. The grounds for eviction raised in the eviction petition were bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord (Section 9(i) of the 2001 Act) for the business of his grand son Priyank Jain, who at the relevant time was 23 years of age and unemployed; the tenant had made material alteration in the tenanted premises making out a ground for eviction of the tenant under Section 9(c) of the 2001 Act; and that for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition on 27-8-2003 the tenant was not using the tenanted premises and consequently the tenant was liable to be evicted under Section 9(k) of the 2001 Act. It was stated that the electricity connection to the tenanted premises had been disconnected for years prior to filing of the eviction petition. On service of notice of eviction petition reply of denial was filed by the tenant. On pleadings of the landlord and the tenant, the Tribunal framed five issues which loosely translated, are as under:- (i) Whether the landlord required the tenanted premises bona fidely and reasonably for his grand son Priyank Jain, who was 23 years of age and unemployed for engaging in business therefrom? (ii) whether the tenant had carried out material alterations in the tenanted premises diluting value of the premises? (iii) whether the tenant had not used the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of the eviction petition? (ii) whether the tenant had carried out material alterations in the tenanted premises diluting value of the premises? (iii) whether the tenant had not used the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of the eviction petition? (iv) Whether in view of the landlord having several other shops, his bona fide and reasonable necessity, if any, could be elsewhere satisfied, and that the eviction of tenant from the tenanted premises would constitute comparative hardship for the tenant as against the alleged bona fide reasonable necessity of the landlord? (v) Relief? 3. On consideration of the matter the Tribunal found that the landlord had not been able to prove the first and second issues with regard to his bona fide and reasonable necessity of the tenanted premises and material alteration by the tenant reducing the value of the tenanted premises. However, in respect of issue No.3 with regard to non user of the tenanted premises by the tenant for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition, from the evidence on record the Tribunal found that there was no electricity connection in the tenanted premises for more than six months prior to filing of eviction petition, and also that no document establishing use of the tenanted premises by the tenant, such as account-books and bills of sale and purchase, were produced by the tenant. And thus the best evidence of user of tenanted premises was kept away by the tenant adverse inference against him was to be drawn. Consequently the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the case set up by the landlord based on averments in eviction petition, affidavits in evidence in support thereof remained unshaken and established non user of the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition. Judgment of eviction on 19-5-2007 against the tenant was therefore passed. Simultaneously the Tribunal granted certificate of possession to the landlord. 4. Judgment of eviction on 19-5-2007 against the tenant was therefore passed. Simultaneously the Tribunal granted certificate of possession to the landlord. 4. The judgment of the Tribunal dated 19-5-2007 was taken in appeal under Section 19 of the 2001 Act by the tenant before the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had overlooked the evidences of the tenant such as the licence issued to him under Shops and Commercial Establishment Act for the tenanted shop (Annexure-6) and Income Tax Returns of 2002-03 and 2003-04 (Annexure-7) evidencing conduct of business purportedly six months prior to filing of eviction petition from the tenanted shop. The Appellate Tribunal took into consideration the evidence in the case, including the licence and income tax returns on behalf of the tenant and electricity disconnection in the tenanted premises for over two years prior to filing of eviction petition as also the fact that the tenant had failed to produce any evidence such as account-books qua the shop, bills of sale and purchase aside of the affidavit in evidence of the landlord and concluded that the findings of the Tribunal were reasonable and brooked no interference in appeal. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 30-1-2010 affirming the judgment of the Tribunal dated 19-5-2007. These judgments are under challenge in this petition purporting to be both under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Devendra Raghav, counsel for the tenant has submitted that the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 19-5-2007 as affirmed by the appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 30-1-2010 is vitiated on ground of wrongly shifting the burden of proof on the tenant on the issue of non user of the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition. Counsel submitted that the burden to prove the said issue was of the landlord and aside of bald averments in eviction petition there was no evidence, besides the landlord's own self serving affidavit in evidence, of probative worth to discharge the said burden. He submitted that the Appellate Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law as it did not take into consideration the effect of the licence issued qua the tenanted shop valid 2002-2012 under Shops and Commercial Establishment Act and Income Tax Returns. He submitted that the Appellate Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law as it did not take into consideration the effect of the licence issued qua the tenanted shop valid 2002-2012 under Shops and Commercial Establishment Act and Income Tax Returns. He further submitted that mere absence of electricity connection in the premises for over two years prior to filing of eviction petition was by itself of little avail to come to a peremptory conclusion that the tenanted premises was not being used. It has been submitted that electricity connection was disconnected owing to conspiracy of the landlord with the electricity department to generate an astronomical bill which was impossible to serviced by the tenant owing to which it consequently disconnected for non payment of due and outstanding amount. Counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment in the case of Sat Parkash v. Shiv Lal, AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 199 has submitted that mere fact of non-consumption of electricity for some period does not lead to a conclusion that tenant has ceased to use the tenanted premises. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal also overlooked the letter dated 25-6-2004 addressed by the counsel for the landlord to the tenant, wherein it was recorded that subsequent to death of the tenant's father, the non-applicant was carrying on his business therefrom. Counsel submitted that this admission by itself was sufficient for demolishing the case set up by the applicant landlord for eviction on the ground of non-user. In the circumstances, the finding of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal have been attacked as perverse and hence liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Vigyan Shah, counsel for the landlord has submitted that the issue of burden of proof is quite irrelevant subsequent to evidence coming on record before the court. He submitted that in any event the eviction of the tenant on ground of non user of the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition is based on averments in eviction petition duly supported by the affidavit in evidence by the landlord. He submitted that in any event the eviction of the tenant on ground of non user of the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition is based on averments in eviction petition duly supported by the affidavit in evidence by the landlord. It has been submitted that in the context aforesaid the onus of proof on the issue in question shifted to the tenant, who had the best evidence in his possession with regard the tenanted premises being used by him for his business to negate the landlord's evidence. The tenant however failed to discharge his onus by filing in evidence, account books pertaining to his business from the tenanted shop, as also bills of sale and purchase. It has been further submitted that even otherwise the disconnection of electricity supply from the tenanted premises as admitted by the tenant himself for over two years prior to filing of eviction petition on 27-8-2003 in conjunction with the other evidences on record was sufficient for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion (and for the Appellate Tribunal to affirm) that the tenanted premises had not been used for two years without just cause prior to filing of eviction petition. Counsel submitted that annexure-6, the licence issued under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act and Annexure-7, income tax returns were not of any avail as they did not have much relevance to the factum of the actual use of the shop let out. It was submitted that the best evidence for the tenant's defence could have been the account books, bills of purchase and sale to prove the use of the tenanted premises and non submission thereof by the tenant has rightly been held by the Tribunal as warranting adverse inference against the tenant. Counsel has further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dunlop India Limited v. AA Rahna, (2011)5 SCC 778 ] has approved the statement of law enunciated in the case of Ram Dass v. Davinder, [ (2004)3 SCC 684 ], wherein it was held that "the pleading of the landlord that such non-user is without reasonable cause has the effect of putting the tenant on notice to plead and prove the availability of reasonable cause for his ceasing to occupy the tenancy premises". It has been submitted that even though the initial burden is indeed on the landlord to show that the tenant has ceased to use the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition, on requisite evidence being adduced as was indeed done in the case at hand, the onus shifts on the tenant to prove that the premises had not ceased to be used for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition. This overall evidence was sufficient for the Tribunal to reasonably come to a conclusion of fact of the non user of the tenanted premises by the tenant for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition. It was submitted that the notice dated 25-6-2004 relied upon by the tenant was issued subsequent to laying of the eviction petition on 27-8-2003 and was of little relevance to the issue of non-user of tenanted premises by the tenant for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition i.e. 27-8-2003. Further that document cannot be considered in the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as it was neither filed nor exhibited before the Rent/Appellate Tribunal. 7. Counsel submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal from the evidence on record with regard to non-user of the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be perverse. Counsel therefore prayed, the petition be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment dated 19-5-2007 passed by the Tribunal as upheld by the Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 30-1-2010. 9. Section 19(11)(c) of the 2001 Act provides that orders passed by the Rent Tribunal shall be final. Challenge to a final judgment under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not in the nature of an appeal, but only an invocation of the powers of judicial review/superintendence vested in the writ court limited to addressing issues of perversity and/or misdirection in law, aside of evaluating as to whether the procedure adopted by the statutory Tribunal was lawful and whether the Tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction. I find that the non-applicant tenant has not been able to make out any case for interference by this court on the aforesaid counts. I find that the non-applicant tenant has not been able to make out any case for interference by this court on the aforesaid counts. The Tribunal as also the Appellate Tribunal have found from an objective appreciation of the evidence on record that the tenanted premises was not being used by the tenant for last about two years prior to filing of eviction petition. In coming to the said conclusion the Tribunals not only relied upon the evidence on record but also admission of the tenant with regard to absence of electricity connection in the tenanted premises for last two years prior to laying of eviction petition in conjunction with the failure of the tenant to bring on record the best and clinching evidence in his possession, if it so existed, to prove his user and continuation of his business from the tenanted premises by producing account books, bills of sale and purchase etc. To my mind the admission of the tenant with regard to the fact that he had no electricity connection in the tenanted premises for two years prior to the laying of eviction petition was a final nail in the coffin of his farcical defence. As far as the question of annexure-6 and 7 not being considered is concerned, it is of little event as the documents pertain to a formal permission for running the shop and returns of income both quite irrelevant to the actual running/user of the tenanted shop. I also find no force in the submission of counsel for the non applicant tenant based on the letter dated 25-6-2004 as the said letter was not of the date prior to the filing of eviction petition or even exhibited before the Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal. In my considered opinion, the conclusion of the Rent/Appellate Tribunal with regard to the non-user of the tenanted shop by the non-applicant tenant are one of fact based on an objective consideration and appreciation of the evidence on record. No perversity or any misdirection in law can be attributed thereto. No case for exercising the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Petition dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******