The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper evaluation of evidence and the application of grounds for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. This revision has been filed by the landlord, who, even though in the matter of seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant, which is cooperative store, succeeded before the Rent Controller, as order dated 25.4.1988 was passed for eviction of the respondent, lost his cause before the appellate authority as the order of eviction passed by learned Rent Controller, in an appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant was set aside vide orders dated 5.8.1999. Hence the present revision.

2. The bare minimum facts, that need to be mentioned reveal that Piara Lal, the landlord-petitioner herein, filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of Liquidator Cooperative Store from the shop situated in the Shastri Market, Kapurthala on two grounds, namely that the demised premises remained unoccupied or not used by the respondent without any sufficient cause for a period of 2 to 4 years and that the respondent had made additions and alterations without the consent of the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed the following issues;

"1. Whether the tender of the rent made by the respondent is short invalid and besides is not made by the proper person. If so, its effect? OPA

2.Whether the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for the human inhabitation. If so, its effect? OPA

3.Whether the shop in question is not being used by the respondent without any sufficient cause for the last 2/4 years, if so, its effect? OPA .

4.Whether the respondent has made additions and alterations in the premises in dispute without the consent of the petitioner. If so its effect? OPA.

5.Relief."

3. The resultant trial, as mentioned above, culminated into order of eviction passed by Rent Controller dated 25.4.1988 which in an appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant as mentioned above has since been set aside.

4. With a view to substantiate his case, the petitioner-landlord besides examining himself as AW5, examined Dharam Pal Nanda AW1; Rajinder Kumar AW2; Raj Kumar, AW3; and Roshan Lal AW4, While evaluating the evidence led by the petitioner, learned appellate authority in so far as statements made by Rajinder Kumar and Raj Kumar AW2 and AW3 are concerned observed that both of them are shopkeepers and generally a shopkeeper would depose in favour of other shopkeeper. While dealing with the evidence of Roshan Lal, Advocate AW4 who was appointed as Local Commissioner, Learned Appellate Authority observed that he visited the premises and found the shop locked. But the evidence of this witness could not be relied upon as he had not given any notice of his visiting the spot to the respondent. The pertinent observation made on that count by learned Appellate Authority is as follows;

"When Local Commissioner goes to the spot without giving notice to the other party so his evidence cannot be relied upon."

5. While discussing the evidence of the petitioner, who examined himself as AW5, as mentioned above, Learned Appellate Authority observed that no reliance could be placed upon the statement made by the appellant. However, while evaluating the evidence examined on behalf of the respondent, learned Appellate Authority insofar as the statement made by Harbans Singh, RW2 is concerned observed that he was having his shop in front of the shop in dispute. He could see the shop continuously daily and he stated that the shop never remained closed and was being used as a store. While dealing with the statement of Gulshan Kumar RW3, the Appellate Authority observed that he stated that the premises in dispute was being used as a store. Learned Appellate Authority also observed that it was admitted and proved on the record of the case that a door had been opened in the demised premises which is a shop from adjoining shop, which belongs to somebody else and that fact was taken as if the shop in dispute was being used as a store.

6. Insofar as the second ground