Lady Dr. Asha Bawa vs Smt. Champa Dhawan and Another

S.C. Mital, J.—This revision petition u/s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is directed against the order of the appellate authority affirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, against Lady Doctor Asha Bawa on the ground that she ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of more than four months.

In response to notice of motion, learned counsel for Smt. Champa Dhawan the landlord submitted that the concurrent finding of the authorities below that Lady Doctor Asha Bawa had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than four months, was unassailable. Reliance in this regard was placed on Pandit Kishan Lal Vs. Ganpat Ram Khosla and Another, and Neta Ram Vs. Jiwan Lal, . Faced with this situation, the only question raised by the learned counsel for Lady Doctor Asha Bawa was that her landlord failed to prove the other essential ingredient of section 13(2)(v) of the above said Act viz., that Lady Doctor Asha Bawa had no reasonable cause for not occupying the premises for a continuous period of four months. On the other hand, the argument advanced was that the onus was on Lady Doctor Asha Bawa to prove any reasonable cause vide Mohan Lal v. Kasturi Lal 1966 68 P.L.R. (Suppl.) 35. Her learned counsel contended that in the absence of specific issue, there was no occasion for Lady Doctor Asha Bawa to prove the same. In the interest of justice and without any objection from the counsel of Lady Doctor Asha Bawa, she was granted opportunity to lead evidence to prove the reasonable cause before the Rent Controller by my order dated 5th November, 1980. (Since reported as 1981 P.L.R. 96.) In due course of law. necessary amendment in this regard was allowed to be made in the pleadings of the parties and the following additional issue was framed:-

Whether Respondent No. 1 (Lady Doctor Asha Bawa) had a reasonable cause for not occupying the building in question?

She was given ample opportunity to lead evidence. Upon a consideration of the same, the Rent Controller has sent a detailed report to the effect that Lady Doctor Asha Bawa has failed to prove the issue. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this aspect of the case at length.

A very striking feature of this case is that admittedly the husband of Lady Doctor Asha Bawa went to England in 1972-73 and he died there. In 1975 Lady Doctor Asha Bawa proceeded to England. Now her case is that thereafter she had been paying short visits to England but the fact remains that after the death of her husband in England in the end of January, 1978, she has not returned to India. The present eviction petition was filed on 15th May, 1978 and at no stage uptil now she has come in the witness-box to show reasonable cause of her ceasing to occupy the premises for more than four months. The evidence led on her behalf is, to say the least, very weak, in as much as it has not been made clear as to when, after her departure for England, she came to India and resided in the premises. The inferences sought to be drawn from electricity and water bills are hardly enough. The said bill could have some corroborative value if substantive evidence with regard to the period when she occupied the house had been brought on the record. That being so, no valid ground has been made out to interfere with the report of the Rent Controller.

In the result, this revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.