The court held that the pleadings in an eviction petition should be interpreted with latitude and awareness of the low legal literacy of poor people.

1. The respondent-landlord had filed petitioner for ejectment of the petitioners before the Rent Controller, Ferozepure. The same was dismissed. The appeal filed by the respondent before the appellate authority was allowed and hence the petitioner-tenants have filed this revision petition.

2. The shop which the petitioners are occupying is the subject-matter of the rent petition. Ground for eviction is that the petitioners have ceased to occupy the said shop without any cause since the death of original tenant Pritam Singh. It may be stated that in they very building there is another part in which the petitioners are tenants. However, the petition and this appeal are confined to the shop only.

3. The contentions of the respondent is that Pritam Singh was the original tenant in the shop and the petitioners became tenants by operation of law after the death of Pritam Singh. The contention of the petitioners is that the plea of non-occupation of the premises is incorrect and it was not taken in an earlier petition. It may be mentioned that the prayer for arrears of rent does not arise in view of the fact that no issue in this regard is framed. In this revision also, the arguments are confined to the issue of non-user only.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that except the allegation that the petitioners have ceased to occupy the shop in question for a continuous period of of more than four months without sufficient cause, therefore is no specific pleadings as to since when the shop is not being used and that no particulars were given. He has pointed out that the allegation of non-user is denied in the written statement. In the written statement there is also a plea that the plea of non-user was not taken in another ejectment petition which was dismissed on 31-7-1978. He has contended that earlier petition was filed on 15-5-1978 while the present ejectment petition was filed on 8-6-1978.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the evidence led by the respondent is not sufficient to prove that the demised premises are not used. A.W.1 is Puran Chand Aggarwal, Draftsman. He has deposed that when he went to see the disputed shop it was found closed. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he is seeing the shop almost daily. He has proved the site plan Ex. A1.

7. AW 2 is Mohan Lal. He is a Postman and has deposed that about four years back, he used to see Pritam Singh sitting at the shop and that he used to see a few electric fans lying in the shop. Pritam Singh had died three years back and he also deposed that from the last 3 or 3-1/4 years he is seeing the demised shop lying closed and that during that period he has never seen the shop open. This witness has admitted the fact that the family of Pritam Singh resides in Dal Chand Building (it is the same building) but that portion is a different portion from the demised shop. He has of course stated that he never went to the said shop to deliver any letter. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the deposition of this witness (AW 2) is vague and cannot be relied upon. As against this learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the deposition of the Daljit Singh petitioner who has been examined as RW 1. He has stated in the deposition that he sells electric fans and also gives fans on hire basis. He also stated that he is running his business in the demised premises and that he never kept the demise premises closed for any length of time. In the cross-examination he has stated that he also runs his business in a shop in Main Bazar, Ferozepure Cantt. He has stated that he has never been employed anywhere so far. He has stated that he is the only son of his parents and that he opens his shop in the main market regularly and the demise premises as well. He has also stated that he is not Income-tax payer. He has admitted that he has no mechanic or servant and that he works alone.