The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, which allowed for the ejectment of the tenant if the premises remained closed for a specified period without sufficient cause.

S.D.Anand, J.

1. The respondents-landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to obtain the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the prem- ises under his tenancy.

2. The averment, made in the context, was that the petitioner-tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for the statutory period. The plea was negatived by the learned Rent Controller. It, however, came to be allowed by the learned Appellate Authority. In obtaining the view aforementioned, the learned Appellate Authority drew sustenance from the record-based testimony of AW-1 Brij Lal, an official of U.H.B.V.N.L. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned finding is not sustainable in view of the fact that it is not supported by any material obtaining on the record. Reliance, placed by the learned Rent Controller upon the statement of AW-1 Brij Lal, is assailed by pointing out that the learned Rent Controller ignored the real import of the statement of that witness from consideration.

3. The plea raised deserved to be negatived. The reasons therefor are as under: - AW-1-Brij Lal, an official in the employment of UHBVNL, categorically testified on the basis of record that the meter reader had recorded the reading as 9402 in the month of April, 1998 and the premises had been noticed in the record as locked for the period thereafter upto June, 1999. The witness did say, in the course of cross- examination, that the record ought to otherwise contain entry of expression L, if the premises are found by the meter reader to be locked. He also stated that the record does not contain such entry. This aspect has been appropriately dealt with by the learned Appellate Authority in the course of para 15 of the judgment which is extracted hereunder for facility of reference:-

"The counsel for the appellant has argued that on the tenanted premises electrical connection remain closed since 1.1.1998 till November, 1999 without any sufficient cause. To prove this issue petitioners have examined AW-1 Brij Lal, LDC of UHBVN Department and himself appeared as AW-2. AW-1 Brij Lal, LDC, UHBVN Department has specifically stated that as per meter reading record, the disputed premises were lying closed as there was no reading in the electric meter since 1998 till November, 1999. The counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the authority laid down in case Gian Devi v. Narinder Kumar Ahuja, (2002-3)147 P.L.R. 224 in which it was held by our own Honble High Court under section 13(2)(v) of Haryana Urban Control of (Rent and Eviction)Act, 1973 that when the premises remain closed as per report of meter reader and no electricity was consumed for period of thirteen months when shop remained closed, nor any reason was given for keeping the shop closed for a long period, hence, tenant was ordered to be evicted. Further support can also be taken from the authority laid down in case Mohinder Singh v. Surinder Kaur and others, (2007-2)146 P.L.R. 311 in which it was held that when there is no consumption of electricity proving the facts that the shop remained closed for more than four months and no reasonable explanation was given by the tenant in this regard, then tenant was held to be liable on the ground of ceased to occupy the shop in question. Further support can also be taken from another case authority laid down in case Harinder Singh v. M/s Balli Ram Sansari Lal 2002 (2) RCR 89 (P&H) in which it was held that non consumption of electricity by tenant, then presumption can be incurred that shop was not used and it was for the tenant to explain that the shop was used. There is no electricity consumption specially in summer season. The witness to tenant namely Topan Dass has stated that there is no electricity connection in the tenanted premises but it is admitted fact that the tenanted premises is having electricity supply. Hence, statement of Topan