Non-user of rental premises for over six months without reasonable cause fulfills ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and decree dated 30^th June, 1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangli, in Regular Civil Appeal No.105 of 1989, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners – defendant Nos.1a to 1c against a decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court in RCS/401/1985 came to be dismissed by affirming the said decree.

3. The background facts can be stated in brief as under:

3.1 The respondents – plaintiffs are the owners of the shop premises. Tukaram Morba Jaundal, the original defendant-the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, was a monthly tenant of the suit shop situated at Suit No.463/12 at Maruti Square, Gaon Area, Sangli (“the suit shop”). The original defendant was running a Sweet Mart in the suit shop.

3.2 A suit for eviction of the defendant came to be instituted with the assertion that the suit shop was let out to the original defendant only for the purpose of carrying on the business of Sweet Mart, the defendant had kept the suit shop locked without any cause for over 15 months prior to the institution of the suit. A notice was addressed to the defendant on 27^th May, 1985 thereby terminating the tenancy of the defendant with effect from 30^th June, 1985. Despite service of notice the defendant neither delivered the possession of the demised premises. Nor gave reply to the said notice. Hence, the suit for a decree of eviction and arrears of rent.

3.3 The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. It was categorically denied that the suit shop was let out only for the purpose of carrying on the business of Sweet Mart. According to the defendant, the suit shop was let out to carry on any business. The defendant and his family members had been carrying on diverse businesses, at various point of time, in the suit shop to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, for over 50 years. While denying that there was non-user of the suit shop, it was contended that the wife of the defendant had taken ill and, eventually, passed away, and, thus, the defendant was required to keep suit shop closed. Consequently, there was no non-user without reasonable cause.

3.4 The Trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence and material on record, returned the finding of non-user in favour of the plaintiffs – landlord. The fact that there was no electricity consumption from June 1984 till July 1985 and there was no reply to the pre-suit notice (Exhibit-19) alleging non-user of the suit shop by the defendant, weighed with the learned Civil Judge. On the aspect of the cause ascribed by the defendant for the non-user, the learned Civil Judge was of the view that though the explanation that on account of the illness and eventual death of the defendant’s wife, the shop premises was kept closed, appeared reasonable yet the said explanation was not sufficient to account for the non-user for over one and half year preceding the institution of the suit. Thus, in the view of the Trial Court, the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proof of a reasonable cause for the non-user.

3.5 Being aggrieved, the tenants preferred an appeal before the District Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal concurring with the view of the Trial Court. The learned District Judge was of the view that the ex