The court established that the tenants' acts and conduct constituted a nuisance to the nearby occupants, justifying eviction under Section 13(2)(iv) of the Act.

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The landlord is aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, Sangrur dated 17.05.1996 and the order dated 22.04.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby eviction has been declined on the grounds of cease to occupy, in spite of the fact that it was noticed that the electricity connection had been disconnected in the premises in dispute and there was no water connection in the premises for the last five years, before the date of the filing of the application i.e. 05.09.1988.

2. The denial of bonafide requirement was also on the ground that the property is a commercial property and therefore, could not be used for residential purpose. Similarly, on the grounds of nuisance also whereby eviction was sought, the reasoning given by the Rent Controller was merely because trees were standing in the suit land would not constitute any nuisance and photographs had shown that premises were not in good condition, but nuisance must be of frequent and unusual character and, therefore, mere breaking open of the gate and the entry of some cattle would not be as such of a nuisance to the occupiers of building in the neighbourhood.

3. The said findings have been given the stamp of approval by the Appellate Authority, who also further noticed that the Clerk of the Municipal Committee, Sangrur had appeared as PW-3, who had admitted that the a complaint was made by Mohallawalas, but on account of the no action having been taken by the Executive Officer, the findings as such had been upheld. Resultantly, an application for leading additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was moved and the same was dismissed on the grounds that the said facts were in knowledge as such and the documents were very much in the knowledge of the tenant/applicant, while leading evidence. Even on the issue of non-occupation, it was found that it was rented land and not a building and, therefore, the same could not be got vacated on the ground of non-occupation.

4. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed for eviction of the respondents from the premises marked as ABCDEFGHJK shown as red colour in site plan, appended as (Annexure A). The house of Naurata Ram is situated on the eastern side of the premises and the petitioners are sons of Naurata Ram. It was alleged that earlier sons of Dr. Ujjagar Singh were the landlords and respondents were occupying the same tenants. On account of purchase on 26.06.1981, the petitioners have become the landlords and stepped into the shoes. Resultantly, the petition which was instituted on 05.09.1988, which was on account of the arrears of rent from 01.07.1981 and the fact that the premises had been ceased to be occupied for more than 4 months without reasonable cause. The main gate was lying broken and leaves had been embedded in heap of malba and rubbish and it was not in working order. There was a heap of malba and rubbish around the gate and northern-western corner of the premises and shrubs and grass were growing and premises were not being used. The premises were also required on the ground of bonafide requirement, which is sufficient for the accommodation of the entire family. The respondents were guilty of nuisance due to heaps of rubbish lying in the premises and due to originating of bad smell of the same along with urination of account of passers by urinating in general.

5. Respondent No.1 took the plea that he was a tenant in the premises, but his son Madan Gopal was not and he was visiting the premises sometime. The petitioners were landlord and arrears of rent had been denied and it had been mentioned that they had tendered the rent in the Court and the same was accepted. The plea taken was that it was wrong that respondent No.1 cease to occupy the premises for the last 5 years. The premises had been leased for storing goods, which was stored