Sohan Lal vs Tara Chand Bhasin

D.V. Sebgal, J.—The eviction of the petitioner as a tenant from shop bearing No. 5765/3, Ambala City, was ordered by the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 9-5-1979. His appeal before the Appellate Authority has also failed and his eviction has been upheld vide its judgment dated 17-8-1979. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court through the present revision petition.

The landlord respondent sought eviction of the petitioner on more than one ground but it was eventually ordered on the ground that the petitioner ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for a continuous period of four months preceding the date of application for ejectment. This ground is adumbrated in para 6(b) of the eviction application in the following terms:-

That the respondent having been employed as Munim by M/s Harbans Lal Manohar Singh, Cloth Merchants, Railway Road, Ambala City, for the last over a year had ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for a continuous period of more than 12 months without sufficient cause.

The reply of the petitioner to this averment was that of a bare denial and he asserted that he himself is running business in the shop in dispute. The evidence produced on behalf of the respondent consisted of Shamsher Singh, A.W. 1, Shiv Pal Singh A.W. 2 and respondent himself appeared in the witness box as A.W. 3. The petitioner in turn produced Siri Ram R.W. 1, Manohar Lal R.W. 2, Shasan Lal R.W. 3, Subhash Chander R.W. 4, Suraj Parkash R.W. 5 and he himself stepped into the witness-box as R.W. 6.

I have gone through the judgments of the authorities below I find that the evidence brought on the record has been properly appreciated and the finding arrived at is unassailable. It has been found as a fact that the petitioner has got employment as a Munim with M/s Harbans Lal Manohar Singh, a whole-time job. The attempt of the petitioner to prove that there was consumption of electricity on the shop by producing the electricity bills Exs. R. 1 to R. 33 through Shasan Lal R.W. 3-a Clerk of the Electricity Board, has eventually failed because the bills for the months of February, March, April and July, 1974 Exs. R. 11 to R. 13 and R. 15 alone were relevant and according to them the petitioner has been charged at the rate of two units electricity consumption per month. These are the minimum charges for an electric connection recoverable by the Electricity Board. This evidence was of no held to the petitioner.

In spite of the fact that there was no averment in his reply that his wife and children were conducting the business in the shop in dispute, the evidence brought by him on the record in this respect was also evaluated. Siri Ram R.W. 1 and Suraj Parkash R.W. 5 are the relatives of the petitioner. The statement of Shri Manohar Lal R.W. 2 that the petitioner got employment only with effect from 1-4-197-has rightly been disbelived as it is against the preponderance of the evidence already on the record. R.W. 4 Subhash Chander stated that the shop in question had never been lying closed. In cross examination he, however, denied knowledge of the fact that the petitioner is employed as Munim with M/s Harbans Lal Manohar Singh He did not know whether the petitioner had any licence to deal in cigarettes though he stated that he had been purchasing cigarettes from him daily. This statement has been considered to be of not much value and against the stand taken by the petitioner himself while appearing as his own witness. The petitioner himself admitted that he had been in the employment of the aforesaid firm as Munim. He also admitted that he works at the premises of the said firm from 8 A.M. to 7 P.M. but he went on to assert that when he is away on work his wife and children carry on the business in the shop in dispute. There is virtually no corroboration of this stand taken by the petitioner at the stage of his evidence in rebuttal particularly when no foundation for the same has been laid in his pleadings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, made legal submissions. His first contention is that in the eviction application the period for which the petitioner has ceased to occupy the shop has not been precisely given. According to him, the allegation being vague, eviction on its basis could not be ordered. He sought to place reliance on Puran Singh Tailor Master v. Ram Murti 1981 (1) R.C.J. 668 and Karam Chand Joshi v. Shri Kartar Singh and others 1977 (1) R.C.R. 327. I have reproduced above in verbatim this ground for eviction as contained in the application. The respondent has clearly averred that the petitioner is employed as Munim with M/s Harbans Lal Manobar Singh for more than a year and he has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for a continuous period of more than 12 months without sufficient cause. Section 13(2)(v) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 specifies the relevant ground for eviction to the effect that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. The fact that the respondent has mentioned that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for more than 12 months does not make the ground vague when the averment is read as a whole. I, therefore, reject this contention.

The second submission made by the learned counsel is that when the wife and children of the petitioner are carrying on the business in the shop, he cannot be said to have ceased to occupy the same. This submission ignores the fact that the finding recorded by the authorities below with which I fully agree is that no business is being carried on in the shop and the stand taken by the petitioner that his wife and children are carrying on the business in the shop, as he is in the service of M/s Harbans Lal Manohar Singh, has not been established as a fact.

Consequently, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the authorities below against the petitioner is upheld. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

The petitioner is allowed three month''s time to vacate the shop in dispute on the condition that he deposits the entire arrears of rent along with the future rent for three months within one month from today in the Court of the Rent Controller which amount the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw. However, on his failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, the respondent shall be entitled to take out execution and recover possession of the property forthwith.