The initial burden of proving grounds for ejectment lies on the landlord, and once established, the tenant must prove a reasonable cause for ceasing to occupy the premises.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The landlord has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) for setting aside the order dated 10.04.1990 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby while reversing the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, the ejectment application filed by the landlord on the ground that the Respondent-tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for a period of four months without any reasonable cause, has been dismissed.

2. In the present case, the demised premises is a shop situated at Nawanshahr. It was let out to the Respondent-tenant in the year 1978 at a monthly rent of Rs. 310/-. The tenant started the business of cloth in the said shop. On 25.03.1987, the petitioner filed an ejectment application against the Respondent-tenant and sought his ejectment from the demised premises on two grounds, i.e., that the tenant had not paid rent w.e.f. 01.06.1985 along with house tax; and secondly that the shop was lying closed since 03.05.1986, thus, the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for a period of four months without reasonable cause. It was also mentioned in the application that there was no electricity consumption since the premises were lying closed and the officials of the Electricity Department had made a report regarding locking of the premises.

3. After notice, the Respondent-tenant appeared and contested the above-said ejectment application. On the first date of hearing, he tendered the claimed arrears of rent along with interest and cost, which were subsequently found to be valid. Regarding closure of the shop, he had taken the pleas that the shop was not lying closed and he had not ceased to occupy the same. It was pleaded that he was not keeping good health and even if there was no consumption of electricity, then it was due to his ill health.

4. After taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application on the ground that the Respondent-tenant ceased to occupy the demised premises without any reasonable cause. Regarding non-payment of rent, it was held that the tenant had paid the entire claimed rent on the first date of hearing which was held to be valid. While coming to the conclusion that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises without reasonable cause, the Rent Controller relied upon the evidence led by the landlord to prove that the shop was lying closed from August, 1986 to June, 1987 and during that period, no electricity was consumed. This fact has been proved by AW9-Darshan Singh Hira, an official of the Punjab State Electricity Board, who had deposed that from August, 1986 to June, 1987, the shop in question was lying closed. He has proved the report of the Meter Reader Ex.AW9/1, which shows that the shop in question was lying closed from August, 1986 to June, 1987. This witness has further proved the certified copies of the proceedings, i.e., Ex.AW9/3 and Ex.AW9/4 showing that an order of disconnection of the electric connection was passed due to non- payment of the electricity charges. It has also been proved that during the aforesaid period, no electricity was consumed by the consumer (respondent herein). The Rent Controller has also relied upon the testimony of AW4- Chamkaur Singh, AW7-Sohan Lal and AW8-Charanjit Kumar, who have deposed that they had been seeing the shop in question lying closed. He has also relied upon the photographs Ex.AW8/4 to Ex. AW8/6, which show that the shop in question was lying closed whereas the adjoining shops were open. AW8 has also deposed that he had visited the shop during working hours during the relevant period, but the same was always found closed. The witnesses examined by the tenant, i.e. RW2-Joginder Singh and RW3-Puran Singh were not believed because Joginder Singh had earlier appeared as a witness for the Respondent-ten