The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of specific pleading and reasonable cause in cases of premises remaining unoccupied, and the impact of unconditional acceptance of rent on the ground for eviction.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. The landlord has filed this rent revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, in rent Appeal No. 16 of 1983 decided on 03.04.1986, affirming the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Charkhi Dadri, dated 12.09.1983, in Rent Application 201 of 1980.

2. The landlord (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner), filed an application before learned Rent Controller, Charkhi Dadri, under Section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the tenant (hereinafter referred as "the respondent"), in respect of two shops details of which are given in the head note of the application. It was alleged that the respondent had failed to pay the rent from 01.12.1975 till the date of the institution of the application. The second ground was that the premises remained unoccupied by the respondent for more than four months prior to the date of the filing of the application. Notice under Section 8 of the Act was sent to the respondent on 09.01.1979. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay enhanced house tax increased by the Municipal Committee in the year 1975, besides the monthly rate of rent of Rs. 30/-.

3. The respondent contested the application. He denied the liability to pay the enhanced house tax. He also denied that the tenanted premises are tying closed for more than four months. By his order dated 19.04.1980, learned Rent Controller assessed the costs of the proceedings at Rs. 40/- and interest in the sum of Rs. 136.80P. Arrears of rent claimed by the petitioner for three years immediately preceding the date of the presentation of the application (02.03.1980) were assessed in the sum of Rs. 1080/-. Arrears of rent together with costs and interest made a total sum of Rs. 1256.80P. The aforesaid sum was tendered before the learned Rent Controller on 03.05.1980. This amount was accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner without any protest.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 16.07.1980:-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to house tax? If so, at what rate, since when and how much? OPP

2. What is the effect of non-payment of house tax? OPP

3. Whether the premises in dispute are lying closed for more than four months as alleged in para No. 6 of the petitioner? If so to what effect? OPP

4. Whether the application is liable to be dismissed on account of objections raised in para No. 6 of the reply? OPR

5. Relief.

5. At the outset, it may be noticed that issue No. 4 was deleted as it did not arise for adjudication of the Court by order dated 05.05.1983.

6. After appreciating the evidence, issue No. I was decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. On issue No. 3 again, it is held that the cumulative effect of all the circumstances appearing on the file are sufficient to conclude that the shop remained closed for more than four months prior to the institution of the application. Inspite of the overwhelming evidence, the learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 3 against the petitioner on the ground that there was no pleading with regard to the period for which the premises remained closed and that there was no averment to the effect that the premises remained closed without any reasonable cause. In view of the aforesaid findings, the eviction petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller.

7. On appeal, it has been held that the learned Rent Controller was justified in dismissing the petitioners application.

8. Mr. Sanjay Bansal submitted that, both the learned courts below have erred in law by ignoring the evidence for the reason that there are no pleadings. With regard to the house tax even, though the increase in house tax was not specified in the pleadings, it was certainly mentione