The landlord must prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, and 'ceased to occupy' requires the landlord to establish not only that the business was closed but also that the tenant had withdrawn from the business activity with the intention to stop the business for all times to come.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a rent revision filed by Ch. Sunder Singh, landlord, against the tenant Ram Sarup, and it has been directed against the order dated 3.3.1983 passed by the Court of the appellate authority, Narnaul, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), who affirmed the order the Rent Controller dated 23.4.1982, who dismissed the application of the landlord under Section 13 of the Act.

2. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner:-

3. The landlord filed, a petition seeking ejectment of the demised premises which is in the shape of a shop and it was pleaded by the landlord that the shop in dispute was given to the respondent on rent vide rent note dated 23.8.1972 on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/-. The respondent has neither paid the rent nor tendered the arrears of rent w.e.f. from 2.1.1977 to 22.4.1977 amounting to Rs. 600/-. The fair rent was fixed by the Rent Controller at the rate of Rs. 205/- per month and, thus, an amount of Rs. 161.60 are due to the landlord from the tenant on account of the enhanced rent from 13.8.1974 to 22.4.1977 at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month. It is alleged by the landlord that respondent is a statutory tenant as the period of tenancy has expired. Further grounds highlighted by the landlord while seeking the eviction of the respondent is that the respondent tenant has closed the shop for a period of 5/6 months prior to the filing of the petition and that the respondent had materially impaired the value and utility of the property.

4. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent, who admitted the arrears of rent as alleged and pleaded that he has always been ready to pay the amount but the petitioner was never prepared to issue the receipt. The petitioner wanted to harass the tenant. The tenant, however, denied that he has materially impaired the value and utility of the property or that he had closed the shop for 5/6 months as alleged by the landlord.

5. On the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues for the disposal of the petition:-

"1) Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the shop? OPA.

(2) Whether the respondent has closed the disputed shop for the last 5/6 months? OPA.

(3) Relief."

6. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings, the Rent Controller for the reasons given in para 9 to 12 of the order dismissed the petition of the landlord.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord filed a rent appeal in the Court of the appellant authority at Narnaul, who vide the impugned judgment dated 3.3.1983 and for the reasons given in para 10 sub Paras (i) to (vii), dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the orders of the Court below, the present revision by the landlord.

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. No assistance was given to me from the side of the respondent. With the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the record of this case.

9. Before I deal with the submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it will be useful for me to reproduce para 10 sub Paras (i) to (vii) of the judgment dated 3.3.1983 given by the appellate authority, which read as under:-

"10. I am of the view that the findings of learned lower Court on this issue should also be confirmed against the appellant and his appeal should be dismissed. My reasons for coming to the above conclusion are as under:-

(i) It is not disputed that according to Section 13(2)(v) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, if a tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, he is liable to be ejected. In this petition for ejectment, the petitioner had simply stated that for about 5-6 months the shop was kept closed. In this petition, he does not state that