The landlord must prove the tenant's cessation of occupancy, and the tenant must provide a reasonable cause if denying the cessation.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") assailing order dated 22.2.2005 passed by the Rent Controller and order dated 19.7.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises has been ordered on the ground of "ceased to occupy". The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premised in dispute on the following grounds :-

"1. Non-payment of rent from the period 1.11.1997 to 31.8.2000 besides house tax;

2. The demised premises are lying closed since November, 1997;

3. The demised premises are required for personal necessity;

2. The written statement was filed by the tenant controverting the averments made by the landlord. It was pleaded in the written statement that the rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month including house-tax and the landlord has wrongly claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month besides house tax. It had as further been pleaded that the tenant-petitioner had paid rent upto 30.9.2000 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month including house-tax and that no amount was due. The landlord had not issued any rent receipt to the tenant as there was a relationship of good faith. It had been denied that the demised premises bear No. 8/562 and that no rent note was executed between the parties. It had been denied that the demised premises ever remained closed from November 1997 or for a period of four months which was statutory requirement and it was stated that the tenant had been doing his business from the demised premises. It had further been pleaded that the landlord in collusion with the Electricity Department had got the supply disconnected in the year 1998 with an ulterior motive to dispossess the tenant and that the tenant had already moved an application dated 4.6.2001 for restoration of the electricity supply. It had been denied that the landlord required the demised premises for the use and occupation of his son.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 8.8.2002 :-

"1. Whether the respondent is a statutory tenant under the petitioner on a shop bearing property No. 8/562 situated at Gohana Road and as shown in the site plan `ABCD attached with the petition at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the ground that the respondent has arrears of rent as alleged in para Nos. 3 F(a), (b), (c), (d) of the petition ? OPP

3. Whether the petitioner has not come with clean hands in the Court, as alleged in para No. 1 of the preliminary objections, as alleged, if so, to what effect ? OPP"

4. Whether the respondent is entitled for repayment of excessive amount of rent, if so to what effect, as alleged in para No. 2 of the preliminary objection ? OPR

5. Relief."

Issue No. 2 was re-cast on 4.6.2004 which reads as under :-

"2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground as prayed for ? OPP"

4. The Rent Controller found that the ground of non-payment of rend did not survive as the tenant has already deposited the entire arrears of rent at the time of appearing in the Court. The Rent Controller held that the tenant had "ceased to occupy" the premises continuously for much more than four months before filing of the ejectment petition and also that the demised premises were bona fide required for the personal use of the landlord. The order of ejectment was thus passed against the tenant.

5. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of eviction that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises but reversed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that the landlord requires the premises for personal use. The ev