The landlord must prove the tenant's continuous cessation of occupation for four months without reasonable cause to seek eviction under S.13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 511 and 512 of 1985 since common questions of law and facts arise for determination therein.

2. The facts :-

Respondent/ landlord filed Rent Applications Nos. 7 and 8 of 1981. Rent applications were consolidated and evidence was recorded in Rent Application No. 7. Sat Parkash, petitioner No. 1 (original tenant), took on rent one shop forming part of property unit N.B.IV-1705 (old) / B-IV-1383 (new) at Rs. 70/ per month payable in advance for a period of three months with effect from 14/05/1970. He executed a rent note in favour of the respondent/landlord. The tenant did not vacate the demised premises after the expiry of contractual period and became statutory tenant. House tax was levied by Municipal Committee, Ludhiana at the rate of 15% and the tenant was liable to pay the same. He neither paid the rent nor house-tax with effect from 13/12/1978. He ceased to occupy the demised premises since June, 1978. Premises remained closed for about four months continuously without any sufficient cause. A registered notice was served on the tenant on 3/05/1979 that he had, without the written consent of the landlord, by his act and conduct materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by breaking open the intervening wall as the adjoining shop was also on tenancy with him. The removal of intervening wall had weakened the structure and had spoiled the shape and outlook of two shops. The tenant had constructed Parchhati by making holes in the walls and had also closed the ventilators resulting in diminishing of light and air to the shop. The tenant had sublet the premises to Anil Kumar, respondent No. 2 (in the rent application) at a higher rent. Thus, both of them were liable to ejectment.

3 Second ejectment application (R.A. No. 8 of 1981) was filed with regard to the adjoining shop almost on identical grounds except of material alteration. In that application, it was stated that the tenant had lowered the level of the shop to the extent of one foot to 1 1/2 feet and had damaged it and that he had also removed the wooden planks of the main door and misappropriated the same and that he had fixed shutters instead of wooden planks by making holes and by spoiling walls of the demised premises.

4. The respondents, namely, the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant, contested the applications. They denied the allegations made in the applications and pleaded that the shops always remained open and business in the name of Balson Traders was being carried on in the demised premises. It was denied that Sat Parkash, petitioner/respondent No. 1, had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises and that he had sublet the premises to petitioner/respondent No. 2. It was pleaded that the business of Balson Traders was being run in the shop in partnership and the partners were the original tenant and Anil Kumar. Partnership deed dated 3/04/1980 was executed. It was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

1. Whether petitioner is entitled to house-tax. If so, to what extent? 2. Whether there had been valid tender of rent? OPR 3. Whether respondent No. 1 has materially impaired the value and utility? 4. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 without the consent of the petitioner? OPP 5. Whether respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the premises for more than four months and liable to ejectment? OPP 6. Relief.

6. Under issues Nos. 1 and 2, the Rent Controller found that the tenant was liable to pay house-tax with effect from 3/05/1979 and that the arrears of rent along with house-tax were tendered on the first date of hearing and a valid tender was made in both the ejectment applications; issue No. 3 was answered against the landlord and it was held that the tenants were not liable to eviction on the ground of having committed any act so as to m