Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3637
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
Hem Raj - Appellant
Versus
Manveen Kaur - Respondent
CR No. 8354 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-01-2018
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sangram S. Saron and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocates, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that 'ceasing to occupy' under Section 13 (2) (v) of the 1949 Act does not require physical locking of premises, and the burden of proof shifts to the tenant to prove occupation for the statutory period.
Headnote:
ceasing to occupy - Rent Appeal - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ("1949 Act") - Section 13 (2) (v)
Fact of the Case:
The tenant was evicted on the ground of ceasing to occupy the demised premises, which was commonly known as the Transport market. The tenant's occupation changed from consultancy business to liquor business and property dealing, without amenities like electricity or water for a long time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for more than the statutory period without reasonable cause, and the tenant failed to prove occupation for the material period prior to the eviction petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of 'ceasing to occupy' under Section 13 (2) (v) of the 1949 Act, the change of user of the premises, and the violation of Section 11 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that ceasing to occupy does not require physical locking of premises, and the possession may be symbolic. The change of user and violation of Section 11 of the Act were grounds for eviction. The burden of proof shifted to the tenant, and the tenant's failure to restore amenities or provide evidence of occupation led to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the tenant was ordered to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within a month.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - I had heard Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Mr. Sangram S. Saron and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, learned counsel for the respondent landlady on caveat on November 29, 2017 at considerable length and had reserved orders which are being pronounced today.
2. This is tenant's petition against the order passed in Rent Appeal No. 94 of 2014 decided on October 24, 2017 whereby the orders of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has been set aside and the petitioner evicted on ground of ceasing to occupy the demised premises bearing address SCF No. 15, Manimajra UT Chandigarh which is commonly known as the Transport market. When tenant ceases to occupy rented premises for a period of more than four months it furnishes ground to the landlord to seek the eviction of the tenant.
3. The tenant was put in occupation of the first floor of the demised premises in 1998 by the respondent landlord to carry on Consultancy business. Over a period of time the user changed to liquor business and of property dealing in the premises, though this fact is not of any great importance to the conclusion to be reached in a case under Section 13 (2) (v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ("1949 Act") where tenant has ceased to occupy the premises without reasonable cause.
4. The further broad facts of the case are that the electric connection of the first floor was given on August 28, 1998 by the respondent. The last payment on the meter bill was made on October 18, 2001. Witness from the administration testified that the electricity connection was disconnected in 2002 and the water connection in 2005. The position remained the same till the filing of the rent petition in March 2007. The tenancy was for a period of three years from May 01, 1998 to April 30, 2001 but continued till the landlady filed a civil suit for ejectment of the tenant, for recovery of rent and for damages in 2003 as a result of Chandigarh Administration notification dated November 07, 2002 exempting buildings from the operation of the Rent Act whose rent was more than Rs. 1500/- per month. The notification was quashed by Court reverting the landlords to pursue cases of eviction under the rent law.
5. Upon trial, the Rent Controller dismissed the rent petition holding that no evidence has come on record to show that the premises were actually locked and in reaching this conclusion relied on statements of respondent witness No. 1 Subhash RW-2 Hemant and tenant appearing himself as RW-3 that he is in occupation of the demised premises. The learned Rent Controller distinguished the judgment of this Court in Dr. Suraj Chander Oberoi v. Darshan Singh Sodhi, 2003 (1) RCR (Rent) 722 . The ruling holds that when it is proved that there is no consumption of electricity for a year and oral evidence is also available that shop remained locked, then an inference can be drawn against the tenant that he has ceased to occupy the premises.
6. The Rent Controller held that pleadings do not show from which year and month the premises is locked. In the petition it was pleaded by the landlady that tenant had ceased to occupy the premises since last four months whereas the statutory requirement for eviction is tenant ceasing to occupy premises for four months without reasonable cause.
7. It was argued on behalf of the tenant that the act of physical locking of premises is literal interpretation which has no basis in Section 13 (2) (v) of the 1949 Act. The tenant urged that since the premises were locked with his keys therefore, he had not ceased to occupy the premises. In my considered view, this contention is not the correct interpretation of Section 13 (2) (v) of the 1949 Act. The Rent Controller interpreted locking in an unrealistic literal sense which interpretation has no basis in the 1949 Act.
8. This wrong and literal interpretation of the Rent Controller has been corrected by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh in the impugned o
