In order to succeed in an ejectment petition under Section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the landlord must establish that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without sufficient cause.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This revision was filed on behalf of the landlord by Mr. Puran Chand, Advocate, who has since expired and as a result of that vide order dated 6.8.1999 notice was ordered to be issued to petitioner Kedar Nath to appear in person or engage a counsel, failing which the petition shall be disposed of on merits. As per the report of the Registry petitioner Kedar Nath has been served. Today nobody has given the appearance on behalf of the petitioner and in these circumstances I am disposing of this Civil Revision with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision has been field by Kedar Nath and has been directed against the judgment dated 23.10.1982 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, vide which the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated 25.1.1980, who dismissed the application of the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The brief facts of the case are that an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed by Kedar Nath against Rattan Chand tenant seeking his eviction from the demised premises i.e. shop on the grounds that he had given the shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 7/- w.e.f. 4.11.1970 and that the tenant has failed to pay the rent since 4.11.1973 along with house-tax and that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for more than one year before the filing of the ejectment petition without any sufficient cause and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted.

4. Notice of the petition was given to the tenant, who filed the reply and denied the allegations levelled by the landlord. According to the tenant-respondent, the ejectment petition has been filed on the mala fide grounds. The tender was made on the very first date of hearing and on the small pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the present petition has been filed with mala fide intention as alleged? OPR

2. Whether the tenancy of the respondent has been terminated by a valid notice? OPA

3. Whether the tender made on 8.6.1979 is a valid tender? OPR.

4. Whether the shop in dispute has remained closed for more than 4 months which is one of sufficient cause as alleged? OPA

5. Relief.

5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and for the reasons given in paras Nos. 7. to 10 of the order, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition vide order dated 25.1.1980.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed the appeal under Section 15 of the Act which met with the same fate for the reasons given in para No. 7 of the judgment of the appellate authority, which read as under:-

"7. Mr. M.L. Jhanji, learned counsel for the appellant, was unable to find any fault with the correctness of the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller, on issue No. 3 where under it was held that the tender made by the tenant-respondent in the ejectment proceedings was valid. This Court unreservedly endorses this finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller. Mr. M.L. Jhanji, espousing the cause of his client-landlord-appellant brought to the light the sworn statements made by Kidar Nath appellant A.W.1, Pargat Singh A.W.2 and Kukam Chand A.W.3 and Mani Singh A.W.5 who deposed that the tenanted shop was all along seen lying closed for the last 5-6 years and according to him the case put forth by the landlord-appellant is covered under the provisions of Section 13(2)(v) of the Act and the tenant-respondent was thus contended to have incurred the liability of being ejected from the demised shop. Mr. S.R. Wadhera, learned counsel for the tenant-respondent, not only successfully met this argument pressed in service by his legal rival, Mr. M.L. Jhanji but also completely exposed the hollowness of the case set up by the landl