Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1281 (HP)

Mohinder Kumar Walia v. Prakasho Devi

2016-07-05

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Present Civil Revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2013, passed by learned Appellate Authority, Shimla Division in Civil Rent Appeal No. 18-S/14 of 2012, partly affirming the order passed by learned Rent Controller-(IV), Shimla, whereby petition filed by the respondent was partly allowed. 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the petitioners filed petition under Section 14(2)(i) and (v) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, Rent Act’) for eviction of original respondent/tenant, who died during the pendency of the petition and was substituted by her legal heirs (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondents’), from one residential room situated in Kapoor Cottage Ist Floor, Hari Nagar, Boileauganj, Shimla, (for short ‘demised premises’) on the ground of arrears of rent as well as the respondents have ceased to occupy the demised premises in question. 3. Learned trial Court, on the basis of material on record, allowed the petition and held that the respondents are in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.2022.70 as well as they have ceased to occupy the tenanted premises without any reasonable cause preceding 12 months of filling of this petition with costs of Rs. 2000/-. However, learned Rent Controller ordered that the respondents shall not be evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of arrears of rent, if they deposit the same within 30 days from the date of order. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by learned Rent Controller, respondents-tenants filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Rent Act before the learned Appellate Authority, who modified the order of the learned Rent Controller by partly allowing the petition and held that, “the finding of learned Rent Controller that tenants have not paid rent w.e.f. Ist April, 2008 is affirmed and finding that tenants have ceased to occupy the premises without any reasonable cause continuously for a period of twelve months prior to filing of eviction petition is set aside”. The petitioners aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority, preferred the instant revision petition. 5. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the order/judgment passed by the learned appellate Court below is not sustainable as the same is not based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. The petitioners aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority, preferred the instant revision petition. 5. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the order/judgment passed by the learned appellate Court below is not sustainable as the same is not based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. He submitted that learned appellate Court below has not specifically dealt with the pleas and arguments raised by the present petitioners. He also contended that learned appellate Court while deciding the case at hand has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective. He further submitted that the learned appellate Court below has committed an error of law and facts by partly allowing and modifying the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, who had rightly allowed the petition filed by the present petitioners and passed an order of eviction against the tenants on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as ceased to occupy the tenanted premises continuously without reasonable cause. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned appellate Court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the petitioners did not prove on record that the respondents-tenants have ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of 12 months prior to the filing of the eviction petition 6. Mr. Vashishta forcefully contended that undue credence has been lent to the statement given by RW-2 Sh. Pyare Lal, posted at District Food and Supply Controller, Shimla, who in his examination-in-chief stated that the ration card was issued in the name of respondents but in his cross-examination he stated that after issuance of ration card to a person, the same is not verified thereafter. He contended that merely issuance of the ration card in favour of the tenant cannot be ground to conclude that he had been staying continuously in the demised premise. 7. During arguments having been made him, he invited attention of this Court to statements given by RW1, who in his cross-examination stated that Rajinder Singh died about two years ago and Smt. Pritmi Devi died about one year ago in her village. He also pointed out that premises were rented out to Pritmi Devi after the death of her husband late Sh. Gopal Singh. He also pointed out that premises were rented out to Pritmi Devi after the death of her husband late Sh. Gopal Singh. Learned counsel contended that learned appellate Court very conveniently ignored the statement of RW3 wherein he in examination-in-chief admitted that his father Rajinder Singh and grandmother died in the premises in question, but in cross examination, he categorically admitted that Smt. Pritmi Devi died in Ludhiana, which clearly suggests that there were material contradictions in the statement given by RW2, which have been heavily relied upon by the learned Appellate Court. Mr. Vashishta, while concluding his arguments specifically invited attention of the Court to the statement of RW3, wherein he specifically admitted that there was less consumption of electricity for the year, 2007-08. RW-3 also admitted that no record of the consumption of the gas during the relevant period has been annexed with the reply to the petition. Mr. Vashishta forcefully contended that the learned Appellate Court miserably failed to appreciate that it stands proved on record that respondents were served on the addresses of the village as mentioned in the memo of appeal, which clearly suggests that they had ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for the period of 12 months prior to the filing of rent petition. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that learned first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective because it ignored the evidence put forth by the petitioners with regard to the consumption of electricity for a period of 12 months. He invited attention of this Court to the statement of PW2 Hans Raj Gupta, Foreman HPSEB, Khalini Sub-Division, to demonstrate that electricity bill of demised premises Ext.PW2/A was in the name of Rajinder Singh and further perusal of which suggests that only one unit of electricity was consumed in two months and consumption for the rest of the period was nil. At last Mr. Vashishta, contended that the petitioners had successfully proved on record the continuous absence of tenant from the premises without any reason and, as such, finding returned by the first appellate Court that petitioners have failed to establish that respondents ceased to occupy the premises, is contrary to material available on record and, as such, judgments passed by the learned First Appellate Court deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. 8. On the other hand, Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, representing the respondents supported the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court and he vehemently argued that no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case since the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record. He contended that landlord had no cause of action, whatsoever, to file the petition since it stands duly proved on record that respondents have been residing in the tenanted premises continuously for thirty five years together. During arguments having been made by him, he invited attention of the Court to the statements given by RW1 Jagarnath and RW2 Pyare Lal to demonstrate that it has come specifically on record that respondents have been residing in the locality for the last 35-36 years. He also referred to that portion of the statement, whereby RW1 stated that two sons of deceased Rajinder Singh were performing business in Shimla and they use to visit residential house of tenants. He also invited attention of this Court to that portion of the statement given by RW2, wherein he stated that ration card for five members was issued on 1.2.2004, to demonstrate that tenanted premise was being regularly used by the respondents. Mr. Chauhan, forcefully contended that by leading cogent and reliable evidence on record, respondents discharged their onus to prove that they have not ceased to occupy the premises but in the present case, no evidence worth the name has been placed on record by the petitioners to suggest otherwise, rather witnesses produced on behalf of respondents have clearly supported the case of the respondents, wherein RW2 admitted that Ration Card was issued in the name of five members. He also submitted that this is not the case, where interference of this Court is warranted while exercising revisionary jurisdiction, especially, when both the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. 10. Pleadings on record suggest that the landlord filed petition for eviction of the present respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as cease to occupy the premises. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. 10. Pleadings on record suggest that the landlord filed petition for eviction of the present respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as cease to occupy the premises. Record further reveals that respondents tenants took the objection that they had deposited the rent up to 31.3.2008. But both the courts below after appreciating the evidence available on record, in this regard, came to the conclusion that respondents tenants are in arrear of rent. Moreover, aforesaid findings qua the arrears of rent have attained finality since no appeal, whatsoever, qua the same has been filed by the respondents-tenants. Since issue with regard to arrear of rent stands finally decided by the court below, this Court needs not to look into at that issue at this stage. Now question which remains to be determined/decided by this Court is whether findings returned by the first appellate Court to the effect that respondents have not ceased to occupy the tenanted premises, are based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record or not? 11. Perusal of the impugned judgment suggests that learned Appellate Court, while accepting the finding of the Rent Controller qua the arrears of rent, has concluded that tenants have not ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of 12 months prior to filing of the eviction petition. In the present case, petitioner No.1-Mohinder Kumar, with a view to prove its case that respondents have ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for a period of twelve months before filing of the petition, examined himself as PW1. Careful perusal of his statement suggests that respondent-Pritmi Devi had shifted to her village Hanuman Badog, Arki, District Solan, H.P. four years back and since then, she had been residing there and tenanted premises were lying locked. He specifically stated that respondent never visited the premises during this period. In support of his contentions, he also placed on record Ext.PW1/A electricity bill, however, in his cross-examination, he admitted the mention of one room in tenancy of the respondent and there is no mention with regard to kitchen. He also admitted that tenant Gopal, was the husband of the Pritmi Devi, who used to reside with his wife and four children. He also admitted that after death of Gopal, respondent was residing continuously. He also admitted that tenant Gopal, was the husband of the Pritmi Devi, who used to reside with his wife and four children. He also admitted that after death of Gopal, respondent was residing continuously. 12. Petitioners also examined Hans Raj Gupta Foreman, HPSEB Khalini Sub Division, as PW2, who stated that Ext.PW-2/A is correct as per their record. He also stated that connection of respondent bearing No. H 1000028 was in the name of Sh. Rajinder Singh and record pertains qua aforesaid matter w.e.f. 26.6.2007 to October, 2008 suggests that only one unit of electricity was been consumed in two months and consumption for rest of period was nil. He also stated in examination-in-chief that one unit can be consumed by indicators also, however, in his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot tell as to how many Rajinder Singhs are in the sub division, of which, he had brought the record but he also admitted that address of Rajinder Singh is not mentioned in the record. 13. Respondent Kamal with a view to rebut the evidence of the petitioners, himself appeared as RW2-A and stated that Pritami Devi and Gopal Singh were his grandparents. He also stated that the premises in dispute consisted of one room, kitchen and bath room. Stated that respondent Prakasho Devi is his mother and respondents No.3 and 4 are his brothers. He stated that his brother died in 2008 and grandmother died in 2007. It has also come in his statement that after death of grandmother, they along with father were residing in the tenanted premises. He also stated that he had left school in 2008 and his eldest brother was in the army and second brother was a driver. He also admitted in cross examination that in 2007-08, their electricity consumption was less, however, he self stated that during that period, they were in hospital at Ludhiana and denied the house was lying locked. He also admitted of not filing any record showing any gas connection. It has also come in statement that Pritmi Devi as well as all other respondents were served on the village addresses. Another witness namely Shri Jagarnath produced by respondents, appeared as RW-1 stated that he knew respondent and her husband late Shri Gopal Singh. He stated that respondents used to reside in Kapoor Cottage Hari Nagar, Shimla, which was taken on rent by Gopal Singh. Another witness namely Shri Jagarnath produced by respondents, appeared as RW-1 stated that he knew respondent and her husband late Shri Gopal Singh. He stated that respondents used to reside in Kapoor Cottage Hari Nagar, Shimla, which was taken on rent by Gopal Singh. It also came in his statement that Gopal Singh was residing with her wife and along with his family. He also stated that Prakasho Devi and children resided in the tenanted premises. He also deposed that he was neighbor of Gopal Singh and was residing in Hari Nagar for 35-36 years. However, he stated that Rajinder Singh got education in Boileauganj school and used to reside with respondent in tenanted premises during their school days. He stated that tenanted premises never remained locked. In his cross examination, he stated that he is not aware that who is the landlord of the tenanted premises. He also admitted that Pritmi Devi died in village. In his cross-examination, he stated that respondents used to go to school 15-16 years ago. He also admitted of having good relations with the respondents. He also admitted that Kaku S/o Rajinder Singh had asked him to appear as witness. 14. RW2 Pyare Lal, Auditor of District Food and Supply Officer Shimla, deposed that ration card was issued in favour of the Rajinder Singh on 1.2.2004. Later he self stated that it was issued in the name of five members and thereafter, the name of Rajinder Singh was struck off because of his death. However, in cross examination he admitted that when ration card is issued once and, thereafter, it is not verified as to whether they are residing on the given address or not? 15. Conjoint reading of the statements given by PWs1 and 2 clearly suggests that respondent Pritima Devi had shifted to her village Hanuman Badog, Arki, HP, after the death of her husband and respondents have not been residing continuously in the premises for the last 4-5 years. PW2 Hans Raj Gupta specifically stated while proving Ext.PW2/A, that only one unit electricity was consumed in two months and consumption for rest of the period was nil, meaning thereby, respondents tenants were not residing in these premises during the aforesaid period. PW2 Hans Raj Gupta specifically stated while proving Ext.PW2/A, that only one unit electricity was consumed in two months and consumption for rest of the period was nil, meaning thereby, respondents tenants were not residing in these premises during the aforesaid period. Since this is not the case of respondents that the electricity meter was out of order or dead, version put forth by the PW2 Hans Raj, who is an independent witness cannot be dis-believed, especially, on the face of Ext.PW2/A, which is electricity bill issued in the name of Rajinder Singh. Since, it is admitted case of the respondents that meter was in the name of Rajidner Singh, it can be safely held that meter No. H 1000028 was in the name of son of original tenant i.e. Rajidner Singh. 16. In the present case, landlord, who appeared as PW1 categorically stated that deceased respondent has been residing at Arki for the last four years and since then, premises are lying locked and to substantiate his aforesaid assertion, he got examined PW2 Hansraj, official of electricity, who while proving Ext.PW2/A categorically stated that during the period w.e.f. 26.2.2008, only one unit of electricity was consumed within two months ,which clearly suggests that during 26.6.2007 to October, 2008, none of the respondents resided in the tenanted premises. Had anyone of the them resided in the premises during the aforesaid period, they would have consumed considerable units of electricity but in the present case, only one unit has been consumed in two months and consumption for the rest of the period is nil. PW2 also stated that one unit can even be consumed by indicators. In view of the above, this Court sees no reason to dis-believe the version put forth by the official witness produced by the plaintiff in support of his contention with regard to cease to occupy. Moreover, records nowhere suggests that any suggestion with regard to motive to depose falsely against the respondents was ever put to this official witness PW2. 17. Conjoint reading of statements given by PW1 and PW2 proves it beyond reasonable doubt that tenanted premises in question remained closed w.e.f. 26.6.2007 to October, 2008. Respondent tenant who himself appeared in witness box stated that electricity consumed was less since they were in hospital at Ludhiana. 17. Conjoint reading of statements given by PW1 and PW2 proves it beyond reasonable doubt that tenanted premises in question remained closed w.e.f. 26.6.2007 to October, 2008. Respondent tenant who himself appeared in witness box stated that electricity consumed was less since they were in hospital at Ludhiana. In his cross examination, he also admitted that Pritmi Devi died in village and his father died in Ludhiana. Aforesaid submissions/admissions made on behalf of respondent No. 2, itself substantiate the claim of the petitioners that deceased respondent used to reside at Arki for the last 4-5 years and premises were lying locked since then. Though RW 1 whose statement has been heavily relied upon by the learned Appellate Court stated that now Prakasho Devi and her children resides in the tenanted premises but in his cross examination, he admitted that original tenant of premises Pritima Devi died in village. He has also admitted in cross examination that he is not aware when children of Rajinder Singh used to go to School, rather, he has stated that they used to go to school 15-16 years ago. 18. Careful perusal of statement of RW1 though suggests that respondents have been residing in tenanted premises for last few years but no specific statement, whatsoever, has come from him suggestive of the fact that respondents have not ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for the last 12 months preceding to filing of the petition, rather RW1 categorically admitted in cross-examination that children of late Rajinder Singh used to go to school 15-16 years ago. Admittedly, there is nothing in the statement of RW 2 to suggest that in the last 12 months prior to filing of the petitioner, respondents were actually residing in the demised premises. Similarly, RW2 Pyare lal, Auditor of office of District Food and Supply stated that ration card was issued in favour of Rajinder Singh on 1.2.2004 but in his cross-examination, he specifically admitted that once ration card Code No. J-7/383, Sr. No. 797 is issued, thereafter, it is not verified as to whether they were residing on the given address or not? No. 797 is issued, thereafter, it is not verified as to whether they were residing on the given address or not? Hence, this court is of the view that statements given by RW1 and RW2 were not sufficient to conclude that respondents have not ceased to occupy the tenanted premises continuously for a period of 12 months preceding to filing of the petition because none of the witness produced by the respondents categorically stated that respondents used to reside continuously for a period of 12 months preceding to filing of the petition in the tenanted premises. Respondents, though, by placing ration card on record attempted to prove that they resided in tenanted premises but no evidence worth the name has been placed on record to suggest that preceding 12 months of filing present petition, respondents actually used this ration card. Respondents have not placed on record any evidence to suggest that during last 12 months preceding to filing of petition, they actually used this ration card. Had respondents placed on record any document suggestive of the fact that they procured some ration on the strength of ration card during the period of 12 months preceding to filing of rent petition, this Court would have presumed that they actually resided in the tenanted premises for the last 12 months preceding filing of the petitioner. Apart from ration card, no evidence worth the name with regard to gas connection, if any, was ever placed on record by the respondent to substantiate their claim with regard to their residing in the tenanted premises but merely on the basis of issuance of ration card in favour of the respondents, it cannot be concluded that respondents resided in the tenanted premises during the relevant period. On the other hand, in the present case, petitioner, by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of electricity bill which clearly suggests that during the relevant time, the consumption of electricity bill was nil, discharged his onus to prove that respondents have actually ceased to occupy the tenanted premises continuously for a period of 12 months preceding to the filing of the petition. Importantly, in the present case, RW1 and RW3 in their cross examination admitted that Pritimi Devi died in the village, whereas Respondent. Importantly, in the present case, RW1 and RW3 in their cross examination admitted that Pritimi Devi died in the village, whereas Respondent. RW3 also admitted that they were served on their address of the village, which clearly corroborates the statement given by PW1, where he stated that respondents ceased to occupy the rent /tenanted premises and the premises were locked for 4-5 years. Apart from above, in the present case, it also stands proved on record that notices to all the respondents were served on the village addresses, as is given in the memo of parties, which fact/circumstance also indicates that respondents were residing in the tenanted premises at the time of filing of rent petition. 19. Hence, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court as envisaged under Rent Control Act, 1987, is contrary to record and same is not based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, rather careful perusal of the evidence on record, clearly suggests that evidence available on record have not been dealt with in its right perspective by the appellate authority while accepting the appeal of the respondents. The conclusion drawn by the appellate authority that testimony of PW2 is not sufficient to rebut the testimony of RW1 and RW2 is not tenable at all, especially, when it stands proved on record that during the relevant period, consumption of electricity was nil. Learned appellate Court below fell in grave error while holding that statement given by PW2 is not sufficient to rebut the testimonies of RW1 and RW2 because admittedly, PW2 was expected only to state qua the consumption of the electricity during the relevant period, and, as such, his testimony could not be considered to be a rebuttal, if any, to the depositions made by RW1 and RW2 because in their statements, they only stated with regard to the occupancy and staying of respondents in the tenanted premises during the relevant period. Hence, this Court is not in agreement with the finding returned by the appellate authority as far as the consumption of electricity bill during the relevant time, is concerned. Hence, this Court is not in agreement with the finding returned by the appellate authority as far as the consumption of electricity bill during the relevant time, is concerned. Electricity bill placed on record by the petitioner clearly suggests that tenanted premises remained closed during this period, meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that during the relevant time respondents have not been residing in the tenanted premises because admittedly respondents have not placed anything on record to demonstrate that they continued to reside in the premises during the relevant time. 20. Moreover, as has been observed above, respondents have not led on record any cogent and convincing evidence, be it ocular or documentary to suggest that during the relevant period, they were actually residing in tenanted premises. Had respondents resided in the tenanted premises, during the relevant period, they would have definitely led on record, evidence or details with regard to LPG gas connection or ration procured on the strength of ration card, if any, during the relevant period. Hence this Court finds it difficult to accept the findings returned by the appellate authority that petitioners have not been able to prove that respondents tenants have ceased to occupy the premises. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dunlop India Limited versus A.A. Rahna and another; (2011) 5 SCC 778 . The relevant para No. 21 of the judgment reproduced as under:- “The word “occupy” used in Section 11(4)(v) is not synonymous with legal possession in technical sense. It means actual possession of the tenanted building or use thereof for the purpose for which it is let out. If the building is let out for residential purpose and the tenant is shown to be continuously absent from the building for six months, the court may presume that he has ceased to occupy the building or abandoned it. If the building is let out for business or commercial purpose, complete cessation of the business/commercial activity may give rise to a presumption that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. In either case, legal possession of the building by the tenant will, by itself, be not sufficient for refusing an order of eviction unless the tenant proves that there was a reasonable cause for his having ceased to occupy the building”. 21. In either case, legal possession of the building by the tenant will, by itself, be not sufficient for refusing an order of eviction unless the tenant proves that there was a reasonable cause for his having ceased to occupy the building”. 21. It clearly emerges from the aforesaid judgment that if the building is let out for the business or residential purpose, complete cessation/absence from the premises may give rise to presumption that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. In this case, also there is overwhelming evidence on record, suggestive of the fact that the respondent-tenant had not been residing. 22. Similarly, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Amrit Lal Sehgal versus Smt. Ramawati Sahu 2007(1) Shim.L.C.55 held as under:- “6. There is also statement proved by a witness from the electricity office showing the consumption of electricity through the meter installed in the demised premises. As per this statement only 60 units of electricity, 50 units as reflected in the bill for July, 1990 and 10 units as reflected in the bill for September, 1990, were consumed during the relevant period. This statement also shows that tenant-revision petitioner does not reside in the premises and that only occasionally some people visit the place and stay there”. “7. As already noticed, even the tenant himself says that his brothers, sisters etc. visit the premises and stay there for sometime, which means that the premises are being used only as a tourist resort by the relatives of tenant- revision petitioner. It is by now well settled that occasional visit to the tenanted premises by the tenant do not amount to the tenant continuing in occupation of the premises. Reference in this behalf may be made to Sohan Lal Khanna V. Amar Singh, 2000(2) Latest HLJ 1008, St. Michaeal’s Cathedral Catholic Club v. Smt. Harbans Kaur Nayani, 1997(1) Sim. L.C.237 and Gurbachan Singh V. Ravinder Nath Bhalla and others, Latest HLJ 2006(HP) 177. Therefore, no fault can be found with the finding by the Appellate Authority that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a period of 12 months, before the institution of the petition”. 23. Michaeal’s Cathedral Catholic Club v. Smt. Harbans Kaur Nayani, 1997(1) Sim. L.C.237 and Gurbachan Singh V. Ravinder Nath Bhalla and others, Latest HLJ 2006(HP) 177. Therefore, no fault can be found with the finding by the Appellate Authority that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a period of 12 months, before the institution of the petition”. 23. Since in the present case, it stands duly proved that during disputed period consumption of electricity was minimal, presumption can be drawn that during this period no activity, whatsoever, was carried out in the said premises by the respondents-tenants to prove that they continuously resided in the demised premises. Respondents were expected to lead positive evidence that in last 12 months preceding to filing of the rent petition, they actually resided in the premises, mere symbolic possession, if any, of the premises cannot be sufficient to prove that they have not ceased to occupy the demised premises. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Vipin Kumar versus Raj Kumar Latest HLJ 2010(HP) 1201, the relevant para Nos.13 and 16 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- “13. The appeals arise out of proceedings for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question on the ground that they had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of more than four months without reasonable cause. The trial Court allowed the applications by orders which were affirmed on appeal by the first appellate Court. The respondents challenged the decree before the High Court by revision applications under Section 15(5) of the Rent Control Act which were allowed by the impugned judgment reversing the decree and dismissing the applications. The High Court has held that the landlord has to prove that the tenant by his conduct has brought the tenancy to an end and with that intention discontinued the occupation of the demised premises, and since this has not been done the application have to be dismissed. The relevant clause of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act states that a tenant will be liable to eviction if he ceases to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. The section does not require the cession of tenancy in question. The relevant clause of Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act states that a tenant will be liable to eviction if he ceases to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. The section does not require the cession of tenancy in question. The only condition which has to be satisfied is the non-user of the building for the requisite period. The principle underlying the provisions is that if a premise is not required by the tenant, it should become available to another person who may be in need thereof. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in assuming that unless the cession of the tenancy is proved eviction cannot be ordered.” “16. We are of the view Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority have committed a grave error in taking the view that only if there is abandonment it could be said that there would be cessation of occupation. Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority used words which are not in statute. Statute has not used the word “abandonment”. The word “abandon” means to give up, to desert etc. Tenant need not abandon the building so as to attract section 11(4)(v) of the Act. Landlord is also not expected to establish that tenant has abandoned the building so as to attract section 11(4)(v). Once landlord could establish that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months prior to the filing of the petition he is entitled to get order of eviction under that section. The word” occupy” means to cohabit with to held or have in possession, Tenanted premises must be in the state of being enjoyed and occupied. The word “occupy” used by the statute would show that tenanted premises be put to use. Tenant cannot be heard to contend that he is having physical possession of the premises though not in occupation. So far as this case is concerned, we are of the view landlord has discharged the burden and then the onus has shifted to the tenant and the tenant could not establish that he has not ceased to occupy the premises and even if there is cessation that was with reasonable cause.” 24. So far as this case is concerned, we are of the view landlord has discharged the burden and then the onus has shifted to the tenant and the tenant could not establish that he has not ceased to occupy the premises and even if there is cessation that was with reasonable cause.” 24. Under the Rent Control Act, landlord are entitled to get the premises vacated in case tenant cease to occupy the tenanted premises for a period of 12 months before filing the petition without sufficient cause. In the present case, respondents by producing RW1 attempted to prove that they are in continuous possession of the tenanted premises, even after the death of their grandmother and thereafter, their father but this Court is of the view that tenant may be in possession but unless he occupies the premises, the possession is totally meaningless, rather respondent, to dispel the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that they cease to occupy the premises, is expected to lead positive evidence suggestive of the fact that they actually enjoyed premises tenanted by the landlord and not by another person. In the present case, as has been observed above, no positive evidence worth the name has been led on record that during that period, they actually resided in the tenanted premises which they could lead by placing on record copy of gas connection and detail of the ration procured on the basis of ration card place on record. 25. In the present case, admittedly, respondents were served and notices were issued by Rent Controller on the addresses of villages which itself suggests that at the time of filing of petition, respondents were residing at their village, as has been claimed by the petitioners in his rent petition. In this regard, reliance is placed on para -17 of the judgment passed by this Court in Sohan Lal Khanna v. Amar Singh, Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 1008, which reads as follows: “17. Again, it was specifically admitted by the tenant, which has been recorded in the judgment of the Appellate Authority that the tenant was served with a copy of the petition at his Faridabad address and all communications were served upon him at his Faridabad address. Again, it was specifically admitted by the tenant, which has been recorded in the judgment of the Appellate Authority that the tenant was served with a copy of the petition at his Faridabad address and all communications were served upon him at his Faridabad address. In the light of these circumstances, if a finding is recorded by the authorities that after retirement, the tenant had stayed at Faridabad with his children, it cannot be said that no such finding could have been arrived at and it requires to be interfered by this Court.” 26. In the present case, learned counsel representing respondents-tenants had seriously contested the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the revision in the present revision petition. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment rendered by this Court in Om Parkash v. Subhash Chand, 2003 (2) SLC 217, the relevant paras whereof are reproduced as belows:- “11. It is well settled that while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act, the High Court should ordinarily not interfere with the findings of facts particularly when such findings are concurrent. However, it is also well settled that in a case where the findings of fact are absurd, unreasonable and contrary to the evidence on record or based on no evidence, the High Court will have to interfere with such findings. It is so because in exercising the supervisory powers which vests in the High Court, it has to ensure that justice is done to the parties and in a case where injustice has been done to a party, it is duty of this Court to undo the same. In the case in hand, the findings of facts recorded by the learned Rent Controller had been reversed by the learned Appellate Authority, therefore, propriety of the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority has to be examined on the basis of the material on record.” 22. The contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant that animus deserendi is not established, therefore, it could not be held that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. In G.C. Bhatia’s case (supra) relied by the learned Counsel for the tenant to support his contention a learned Single Judge of this Court held as under: “9. If a tenant uses the rented building occasionally, it may or may not amount to its non-occupation. In G.C. Bhatia’s case (supra) relied by the learned Counsel for the tenant to support his contention a learned Single Judge of this Court held as under: “9. If a tenant uses the rented building occasionally, it may or may not amount to its non-occupation. The nature and extent of the occasional visits, the animus deserendi and the totality of circumstances each case will have to be considered for the purpose of determining whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of twelve months without reasonable cause.” 23. Clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act which provides the cessation of the tenant to occupy the rented premises as a ground for eviction reads as under: “(v) that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building or rented land for a continuous period of twelve months without reasonable cause.” 24. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that to get eviction of the tenant on the aforesaid ground the landlord has to prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of 12 months without reasonable cause and it does not require the landlord to prove further that the tenant has so ceased to occupy the premises with the intention not to occupy them at all at any time in future. 25. It may be pointed out that the ground to evict the tenant who has failed to occupy the building continuously for the specified period without any reasonable cause has been enacted by the legislature to ensure that the buildings which are scarce in the numbers especially in towns do not remain unused at the instance of the tenants who do not actually need them. Therefore, animus deserendi cannot be imported to the section and the landlord is not required to prove that the non-occupation of the premises by the tenant for a continuous period of months was pursuant to his intention not to occupy the premises in future. 26. Therefore, animus deserendi cannot be imported to the section and the landlord is not required to prove that the non-occupation of the premises by the tenant for a continuous period of months was pursuant to his intention not to occupy the premises in future. 26. In M/s Babu Ram Gopal and others v. Mathra Dass, AIR 1990 SC 879 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “3…..The reason of including the clause (v) in Section 13(2) is to ensure that buildings, which are scarce in number specially in the towns, necessitating rent control legislation, do not remain unused at the instance of tenants who do not actually need them. A tenant who is in possession of a building in the legal sense only cannot be said to be in occupation thereof for the purpose of Section 13(2)(v); otherwise a question of his eviction as envisaged in that section would not arise. The section, by making provisions for his ejectment, assumes that he is in possession, but, still includes cessation of occupation as one of the grounds. The clause, therefore, has to be interpreted in this background and it must take colour from the context. We, therefore, hold that if a tenant stops the business which he is carrying on in a shop and closes the premises continuously for a period of four months without a reasonable cause he will be liable for eviction.” Therefore, animus deserendi on the part of the tenant is not an essential ingredient to be proved where the eviction of the tenant is sought on the ground of his ceasing to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months. 27. Even in G.C. Bhatia’s case (supra), this Court has not held that animus deserendi is essential ingredient to be proved by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of his ceasing to occupy the rented premises but it has been held only to be one of the factors which may weigh with the Court in determining whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the building or not. Moreover, intention of a human being is his mental state regarding which direct evidence can be seldom expected. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant that animus deserendi in the case is not proved, therefore, order of the learned Appellate Authority calls for no interference is not sustainable. 27. Moreover, intention of a human being is his mental state regarding which direct evidence can be seldom expected. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant that animus deserendi in the case is not proved, therefore, order of the learned Appellate Authority calls for no interference is not sustainable. 27. No doubt, while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act, High Court has very limited powers to interfere, especially when the findings are concurrent but it is now well settled that in case court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the court are absurd, unreasonable and contrary to the evidence available on record and same are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, court has jurisdiction to interfere with such findings. In the present case also, as has been discussed above, learned Appellate Authority has not returned findings with regard to “cease to occupy” on the basis of evidence available on record, rather, same appears to be contrary to the facts as well as law. Hence, this Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the order passed by the learned appellate Authority undertook an exercise to critically examine the evidence available on record to ascertain that judgments passed by the learned appellate Authority is not perverse and same is based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence on record. This Court after perusing the evidence available on record deemed it fit to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in the present facts and circumstances. 28. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees no infirmity and illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller that the “respondents-tenants have ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for the relevant time and, therefore, respondents are liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises,” is based on the proper appreciation of evidence, whereas the contrary view taken by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable as same appears to be not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is set-aside and order of Rent Controller directing eviction of tenant from the tenanted premises on the ground that respondents have ceased to occupy the tenanted premises without any reasonable cause preceding filing of this petition with costs of Rs. 2,000/- is restored.