The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord must prove the grounds for ejectment under Section 13(2)(v) of the Act, and the court will consider evidence of continuous occupation and reasonable cause for non-occupation in reaching a decision.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the Act) filed by the landlord challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-respondent has been able to establish that the demised premises did not remain unoccupied continuously from 1.2.1984 to 30.7.1984 without a reasonable cause. On that basis it was concluded that the tenant-respondent was not liable to be evicted under Section 13(2)(v) of the Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the landlord-petitioner filed Rent Application No. 34-2 of 24.7.1984, seeking ejectment of the tenant-respondent. The landlord-petitioner claimed that the demised premises were rented out to one Des Raj who is the father of respondents 1, 6 and 7 and grand-father of respondents 2 to 5. It was alleged that the respondents ceased to occupy the demised premises without sufficient cause since February, 1984 as the shop was lying locked from 1.2.1984 till the filing of the ejectment petition on 24.7.1994. It was further alleged that Yog Raj tenant-respondent I had left Ferozepur on 2.2.1984 and the tenant-respondents had failed to pay rent from April, 1984 to June, 1984 till 15.4.1984. It was claimed that till April, 1984, tenant-respondent Rajinder Kumar was carrying on his business in Toori Bazar Ferozepur. The allegation with regard to ceasing to occupy the demised premises without sufficient cause and the allegation that the demised premises are lying closed since 1.2.1984, were controverted. It was also denied that tenant-respondent 1 Yog Raj had left Ferozepur on 2.2.1984. It was further asserted that tenant-respondent 1 was to pay amount of hypothecated limit executed in favour of the Stale Bank of Paliala and on account of default in payment, the Bank had locked the premises on 15.4.1984 in order to recover the amount. The premises remained locked from 16.4.1984 to 29.6.1984. When the shop was opened at the instance of tenant-respondent 1, on 29.06.1984 goods amounting to Rs. 1829.49 paise were sold. On 2.7.1984 and 3.7.1984, goods amounting to Rs. 2347/- and Rs. 700/- were sold. On 28.7.1984, Rs. 15,000/- were deposited in the Bank and again on 30.7.1984 Rs. 3834/- were deposited after the sale of goods lying in the demised shop. The balance amount of Rs. 12620.89 paisa was deposited by Rajinder Kumar in the account of the firm M/s Lakhpal Rai Des Raj to obtain the keys of the shop. The business on the shop is now being run by Rajinder Kumar under the name and style of M/s Chawla Trading Company. It was also alleged that after about a month; he joined his mother as partner who is respondent No. 8 in the instant petition.

3. The rent was tendered before the Rent Controller and the ground of non-payment of rent do not survive. However, the other grounds that the tenant-respondent had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause has been considered by both the Courts below. The Rent Controller has made a detailed reference to the documentary as well as oral evidence to conclude that on 16.4.1984 the Stale Bank of Patiala had locked the demised premises which has not been considered as a voluntary act on the part of the tenant-respondent. It has also been found that the demised premises did not remain closed from 1.2.1984 because on 17.3.1984, Ravinder Kumar, Meter Reader of the Punjab State Electricity Board recorded the meter reading showing the electricity consumption of 64 units. It has further been found that no evidence has been produced on record to show that the demised premises remained locked with effect from 1.2.1984, continuously for a period of four month. On the contrary evidence showing that the shop was opened on 2.7.1984, 3.7.1984, 28.7.1984 and 30.7.1984 and the goods of various amounts were sold which was deposited with the State Bank of Patiala.

4. The appellate Authority has accepted the f