K.Kannan, J.

1. The landlords application for eviction of the tenant was required to be considered on the only issue whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a period of four months prior to the filing of the petition. The landlord had admittedly filed a petition earlier taking up the same plea for earlier years and the petition had been dismissed on 09.10.1982. The present petition for eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises since January 1983. The contention was found favour with both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority who held, inter alia, that the landlord was not entitled to urge the very same ground for the period which was rejected in an earlier round of litigation. The Rent Controller also found himself unable to agree with the contention of the landlord that for the only reason of non-consumption of electricity, it was not possible to conclude that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises. The Appellate Authority had adopted an additional line of reasoning, referring to the Trading Account, Profit and Loss Account and Balance-sheet upto 31.03.1985 (Ex.R-1 to R-3) and similar Account for the succeeding years in 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86 and 1986-87 to come to the conclusion that the tenant had been carrying on the business and the landlord was not entitled to obtain eviction on the said ground.

2. At the time when the revision was admitted, this Court was pleased to appoint Local Commissioner by its order dated 22.10.1991, to visit the spot and report if the shop was lying closed. Shri H.S. Sethi, Advocate, present in the Court, had been appointed as the Commissioner and it was received by the Court on 28.10.1991 recording the fact that the shop was found closed.

3. The Commissioner was reported to have visited the property on 23.10.1991, when he found the shop to be locked. The Local Commissioner had availed the services of a photographer to take photographs of the shop at 12.30 P.M. and the two photographs showing the shop door as closed had also been filed along with the report. The Commissioner had also collected local evidence of witnesses in the vicinity who were alleged to have stated that the shop had been remaining closed since long. In my view, the report of the Commissioner cannot be used for the purpose other than the physical examination whether the shop was closed or not. It would be too difficult to make an inference of whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the building by the only fact that the door of the shop was found closed at the time of visit. The Commissioner did not have any authority to collect evidence at the spot and the observations in the report that the local witnesses had said that the shop had remained closed for long, cannot be used for any purpose, since they were not merely outside the scope of the warrant but also of weak evidentiary value, having been collected without affording to the party affected by to explain the same. I discard the entire report of the Local Commissioner except his physical verification that the shop was closed at the time of his visit at 12.30 P.M. on 23.10.1991. In my view, the reliance on the report of the Commissioner is also be risky for, the fact to be found in this case was not the status of the property at the time when the petition was filed before the Court in revision but completely a different fact namely the alleged cessation of the business for four months prior to the filing of the petition which was done on 23.07.1985.

4. The cessation to occupy should not merely be a matter of fact but shall also be without reasonable cause. It is therefore permissible for a tenant to even contend that business was seasonal in character or that there was some other supervening reasons as illness that necessitated the closure of the premises. The above two circumstances are merely illustrative of the fact that the mere closure of the shop itself will not be proof of the cessa