The burden of proof for grounds of ejectment lies with the landlord, and if the landlord fails to provide sufficient evidence, the ejectment claim must fail.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner before this Court. He has impugned the orders of ejectment from the shop in question passed by the learned Rent Controller and upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.

2. Landlord, Thakur Dass, sought the ejectment of tenant, Ram Chand Sharma, from the premises in question. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and also that the shop in question had been kept closed continuosly for a period of more than one year.

3. The claim of the landlord was denied by the tenant. The arrears of rent were paid by him before the learned Rent Controller. However, it was denied that the shop in question had been kept closed by the tenant. The tenant maintained that the landlord had applied to disconnect the electric connection from the shop in question to the Sub Divisional Officer, Haryana State Electricity Board on the ground that electric meter was not working properly. Since the meter was in the name of Om Parkash real brother of the landlord, therefore, on an application given by Om Parkash the electric meter was got disconnected. Although repeated requests had been made by the tenant to the landlord to get the meter replaced b1" the meter was not replaced. It was specifically pleaded by the tenant that he is running his business in the shop in dispute continuously. Earlier upto August 14, 1986, he was running his business in the shop in the name o/ Bombay Automobiles but later on the name of the shop was changed to Sharma Automobiles.

4. Learned Rent Controller on the basis of the fact that there was no electricity connection in the shop in question and also because of the fact that no account books had been produced by the tenant came to the conclusion that the shop in question had remained unoccupied for a period of more than four months. On that account, the ejectment of the tenant was ordered. On an appeal filed by the tenant, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller were upheld by the learned Appellate Authority also.

5. The tenant has now approached this Court through the present revision petition.

6. I have heard Ms. Alka Sarin, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner and Shri Arun Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord-respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

7. Ms. Alka Sarin, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned authorities below were wholly without any basis since the landlord had failed to prove that the shop in question had remained unoccupied for a period of four months prior to the petition. It has also been argued that the landlord while filing the ejectment petition has not given any specific time or period from which the shop had remained closed. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel that the reliance placed by the authorities below on disconnection of the electricity meter was totally without any justification inasmuch as the tenant had given sufficient explanation with regard to the aforesaid disconnection. The electricity meter had been got disconnected by the landlord and his brother Om Parkash, since the electricity meter installed in the premises was defective. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel that since the tenant was a petty shop keeper and was neither an income tax assessee nor had a turn over which required him to furnish sales tax return, it could not be held that not producing the account books by him could lead to an adverse inference.

8. On the other hand, Shri Arun Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord has supported the orders passed by the authorities below. It has been vehemently contended by Shri Jain that once it is proved on the record that there was no electricity connection in the shop in question, then the obvious inference was that the shop in question had remained unoccupied. Shri Jain has also argued that the onus of proving t