CR No.4166 of 2009 (O&M)

-1-

******

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR No.4166 of 2009 (O&M)

Date of decision:27.04.2011.

Baldev Raj

...Petitioner

Versus

Dev Samaj Society Regd.

...Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

Present:

Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate,

for the respondent.

*****

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The tenant is in revision against the order of eviction passed by

both the Courts below on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the demised

premises (shop) for a continuous period of 4 months prior to the filing of the

eviction petition without any sufficient reason.

In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] for

seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises (shop) which was let

out to him @ `75/- per month besides electricity and water charges. The

landlord sought eviction, inter alia, on the grounds of arrears of rent, ceased to

occupy and impairment of value and utility of the demised premises. The

learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant on 30.08.2008 on the

ground of ceased to occupy which has been upheld by the learned Appellate

Authority vide its order dated 13.05.2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the

Courts below have committed an error of law in mis-reading the evidence

produced by the petitioner. It is submitted that it has come in the evidence of

PW2 that whenever the meter reading was taken, the shop was found to be

CR No.4166 of 2009 (O&M)

-2-

******

opened. He also submitted that mere non-consumption of electricity cannot be

a ground for eviction and the landlord cannot take the benefit of the weakness

of the case of the tenant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has

submitted that the eviction petition was filed in June 2001 and prior thereto for

over one year the electricity bills show that there was no consumption of

electricity inasmuch as the tenant did not even use the fan in the month of June.

I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the available record from which it has been found that there was total non-

consumption of electricity from June 2000 to July 2001 as in the month of May

2000, the meter reading was found to be 7955 units which remained the same in

the months of July 2000, September 2000, November 2000, January 2001 and

March 2001. Thereafter, in May 2001, July 2001 and September 2001 the

meter reading was 7956 units.

Thus, there was no consumption of electricity at all for over a

period of one year and even if the tenant was doing the business of

confectionary in the demised premises, he was, at least, required to use electric

fan. Moreover, no other documentary evidence has been led except for oral

evidence, otherwise if the tenant was doing the business in the demised

premises he could have produced on record some documentary evidence or

even the photographs of his shop having been run.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error in the

orders passed by the Courts below whereby a concurrent finding of fact has

been recorded for passing the order of eviction on the ground of ceased to

occupy. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed though without any

order as to costs.

April 27, 2011

(Rakesh Kumar Jain)

vinod*

Judge