Sohan Lal and another vs Gurbachan Singh

M.S. Liberhan, J.—The only ground that survived for ejectment of the Respondent was that he ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for more than the statutory period. This is the only ground which has been pressed in the grounds of revision.

The brief facts to determine the controversy in dispute, averred by the Petitioners, are that the premises in dispute was rented out to the Respondent on February 9, 1974, at the rate of Rs. 15/- per mensem. The ejectment petition was preferred on November 10, 1975 on the ground that the tenant had closed the shop in question and ceased to occupy it continuously for more than the last two years. It was further averred that the Respondent tenant had other buildings under his tenancy and ownership for running his business. The shop in question was lying closed.

The facts were refuted. It was averred that the shop was being daily opened and the tenant was doing his business.

The Rent Controller found that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for the statutory period and, consequently, ordered his ejectment. However, the lower appellate Court reversed the findings and dismissed the application for ejectment.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has challenged the propriety of the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court that the tenant had not ceased to occupy the premises in dispute. It is urged that the appellate Court had indulged in conjectures while observing that since the tenant is running printing press opposite the shop in dispute, it cannot be inferred that he has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute. It is contended that this finding of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. It is further contented that the evidence of A.W.2 and A.W.3 has been misread. There is no material discrepancy in their statements; as such they cannot be disbelieved. It is contended that the lower appellate Court has failed to raise an inference of non-occupation of the shop in dispute from the fact that no electricity has been consumed as the meter reading has been consistently the same.

I find no force in the contention raised by the counsel for the Petitioner it is the totality of the circumstances which has to be seen. The circumstances which undisputedly emerge from the evidence on record and have been repeated during the course of arguments are that the Respondent-tenant took the premises in dispute on rent only on February 9, 1974, and the meter reading was continuously taken from 1972 onwards till day, which is Exhibit A.1. It shows that the meter reader had been going and recording the meter reading from time to time. It has nowhere been stated by the meter reader that the shop in dispute was found closed. Not only this, it is not disputed that the Respondent is running a printing press is the locality and is also residing there. He has got a number of godowns and shops in the locality in which he is carrying on his business. No reliance can be placed on the statements of the Petitioners or their witnesses particularly in view of the vague allegation having been

made in the petition for ejectment that the shop in dispute was lying closed for the last more than two years when the ejectment petition was filed on November 10, 1975, while the Respondent became the tenant only in February, 1974. No specific period has been averred. No notice of such a vague allegation can be taken. No impropriety in appreciation of the evidence by the lower appellate Court worth the name has been pointed out. Mere non-consumption of electricity by itself is not sufficient to hold that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in dispute in particular when the meter reader has been visiting the shop and has been taking the reading.

In view of the above observations of mine and for the reasons recorded by the lower appellate Court, I affirm the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court that the Respondent has not ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for the statutory period. Consequently, no ejectment can be ordered.

For the aforesaid reasons. I find no force in the revision petition. The same is dismissed.