The burden of proof is on the landlord to prove that the premises have remained unoccupied by the tenant for a requisite period, and on the tenant to establish that it was not so without any reasonable cause.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This is tenants revision directed against order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and as affirmed by the appellate Authority.

2. Vide rent-note dated 17.5.1965, shop in dispute was let out by one Mandir Bhagwan Dwarka Nath Ji, Gita Nagar, Nai Abadi, Hoshiarpur, landlord (respondent herein) to the petitioner at a rent of Rs. 4/- per month. Landlord sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.2.1971 to 30.9.1980 and has ceased to occupy the shop for more than nine years.. In his petition for eviction, landlord averred that petitioner is not doing any business for the last nine years in the shop in dispute and it has remained closed upto the date of filing of the petition. Landlord averred that the petitioner has started his Tal, timber and stone crusher business under the name and style of Sud and Co. on Bahadurpur Road, Hoshiarpur. His brother died about nine years ago and since then he is doing the said business in the shop in dispute. On notice of the eviction petition, rent together with interest and costs was tendered by the petitioner and therefore, the ground of non-payment of rent does not survive. In regard to the ground of petitioner having ceased to occupy the shop for more than nine years, he in his written statement averred that in the shop he had started the business of giving on hire utensil and he has been carrying on the said business till the filing of the petition. He averred that since this business was fetching low income, he also started cloth business in addition to the business of giving on hire the utensils. In regard to carrying of separate business of timber and stone crusher, petitioner averred that he had been a partner with his brother during his life time and even now he is partner with his widow. He however, denied that he has shifted his business or has ceased to occupy the shop. In support of his case, landlord led oral evidence by way of examining four witnesses. On appreciation of oral evidence brought on record, Rent Controller found that the demised premises have remained closed for a considerable period and the petitioner has not been able to explain as to why the premises remained closed. The active participation of the petitioner in other business i.e. timber and fire-wood, was also found to be indicative of the fact that he has ceased to occupy the premises without any sufficient cause for nine years. In appeal by the petitioner, the learned appellate Authority has affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction as the landlord was not only required to prove that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months but he was also required to show that cessation was without reasonable cause. He contended that since the landlord did not plead that cessation was without reasonable cause, order of eviction passed against the petitioner is non-est. He also contended that the Authorities below have not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record. Against this, Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate, for the respondent has contended that it was for the petitioner to prove reasonable cause for not occupying the premises continuously for a period of four months and the petitioner having failed to prove the same, has rightly been ordered to be evicted from the premises. She also contended that the Authorities below have arrived at the conclusion on the basis of appreciation of oral evidence on record and so, this Court should riot interfere in revisional jurisdiction.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that the revision petition is without any merit. Initially; it is for the landlord to prove that the premises have remained unoccupied by the tenant for a requisite period, i.