Cessation of occupancy for a continuous period of four months without sufficient cause is a ground for ejectment under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1251 of 1992 as well as C.O.C.P. No. 785 of 1992. Civil Revision has been preferred by the tenant against the order of ejectment passed by the Authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The contempt petition has been filed by the landlord on the allegation that the landlord took possession on 24.4.1992 pursuant to the order of ejectment and this Court, on 7.5.1992, while admitting the revision petition, had directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession, but the tenant on the night intervening 11/12-5-1992 took forcible possession.

2. In brief, the facts are that the premises in dispute were let out to the petitioner for running of ice-cream and ice-factory. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground, that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises w.e.f. 1.1.1986 continuously for a period of four months immediately preceding the presentation of the ejectment application, and also on the ground that the tenant has caused damage to the premises by its misuse. The tenant denied the averments made in the ejectment application and stated that he has not ceased to occupy the premises, but is in occupation of the same and using it without any interruption. As regards the ground of misuse, the tenant stated that the allegations of the landlord are vague. He, however, denied to have caused any damage or misused the premises. The Rent Controller on the appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the parties, ordered ejectment of the tenant, Aggrieved of the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority, who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal. Tenant has now come in revision to this Court.

3. Counsel for the tenant contended that the manufacture of ice and ice-cream is a seasonal work and it commences in April and ends in October each year. The ejectment application was filed on 15.7.1987 and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of four months. He further contended that the intention of the tenant was not to bring the tenancy to an end. In support of this, he referred to a judgment in Sat Parkash and Anr. v. Shiv Lal, (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 381.

4. In reply, counsel for the landlord, contended that both the Authorities on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, have returned a finding that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of four months, and this Court in revisional jurisdiction, should not re-appreciate the evidence.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and on going through the documents, reference to which was made by counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority have in detail discussed the evidence brought on record. On appreciation of the evidence, the Authorities below have found that the tenant was not carrying on the business w.e.f. 1.1.1986. On perusal of the statement made by the tenant, I find that the tenant, in his cross-examination, has admitted the suggestion of the landlord that he was not carrying on any business in the premises w.e.f. 1.1.1986. He also admitted that for preparation of ice-cream, milk, sugar, saccharine and custard are used, but these were not purchased during the years 1986-87. He further admitted that no material for preparation of ice and ice-cream was purchased during these years. His witness, Jeewan Lal, RW-4, fairly admitted in his cross-examination, that no manufacturing was done in the factory for the last two years. This witness admitted that electric supply was discontinued. RW-5, Bansi Ram, Accountant of the firm, in his statement, admitted that for the last 1-1/2 year, no manufacturing