The burden of proof is on the tenant to prove that he/she was occupying the premises and carrying on business therein.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is landladys revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

2. The shop, in dispute, was let out to Sarla Devi tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- in the year 1975. The ejectment application was filed on July 29, 1983 inter alia on the ground that the tenant had closed the shop, in dispute, from September 1, 1981 and during the period, it had not been in her occupation. The closure of shop had deteriorated the condition of the premises. The walls were seepaged. If the shop continued to remain closed, it could fall in due course of time. The building was an old one made of small bricks. Since the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises without any sufficient cause for more than four months, she was liable to be ejected. In the written statement, the tenant pleaded that she was carrying on business in the shop, in dispute, since the day it was let out to her. It was wrong that it was lying closed as alleged. Its condition was good. The ejectment application had been filed merely to enhance the rent. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had not closed the shop, in dispute for a continuous period with effect from September 1, 1981 and that the condition of the shop was quite good. In view of that finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this revision petition in this Court.

3. At the time of the motion hearing on March 2, 1987, it was contended that the shop, in dispute, was closed even then and a local commissioner be appointed to find out the latest position. Accordingly, Shri Praveen Chander Goyal, Advocate, was appointed as the local commissioner to make his report on March 4, 1987. He filed his report dated March 3, 1987 wherein he found that when he reached there at 6.15 P.M. all the shops, except the shop, in dispute, were open. He also made enquiries independently and was told that the said shop was lying closed for the last one and a half years. In the report the Commissioner has observed :-

"Then I saw the shop from outside. The platform in front of the shop was quite dirty as lot of dust had settled there. There was rust on the kunda and the lock. The spiders had made webs on the hinges and corners of the main door of the shop. Four drums were lying in front of the shop."

Earlier, the local commissioner contacted the son of the tenant, Mukesh for opening the shop, but he was told that the keys were with his father. When his father came and was told to open the shop, he refused to do so as, according to him, its keys were with his son Mukesh. On the basis of the said report, the revision petition was admitted by this Court.

4. During the pendency of this revision petition, the landlady filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2347-CII of 1987, under Order XII, Rule 27, for the production of the additional evidence. By virtue of the said application, she sought to produce on record the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity, made on her application for verification of the connection in the name of the landlady which was disconnected on October 31, 1981. According to the report dated March 19, 1987, the said connection was permanently disconnected in May, 1981 and the final bill was issued on May 6, 1981 for Rs. 9.85. No connection against account No. SG-315 was running under the sub-division. Notice of the said application was given to the tenant-respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the report of the local commissioner appointed by this Court, it was quite evident that the shop, in dispute, was found closed. Not only that, argued the learned counsel, the tenant did not produce the accounts to prove that any business was being carried on therein. She even did not appear