- (1.) Vide order dated 23.05.2011, Rent Controller, Ludhiana, had ordered eviction of the tenant-petitioner, for he had ceased to occupy the demised premises i.e. a shop, which forms part of property No.B XII 337, Shahpur Road, Ludhiana. As even an appeal preferred against the said order failed and was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.04.2014, tenant is before this court. Briefly, the case set out in the ejectment petition was/is that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for more than four months without any reasonable cause. In fact, the premises was/is lying locked since February, 1997, and the tenant had shifted his business to shop No.9, Guru Nanak Complex, Dr. Gujjar Mal Road, Ludhiana.
(2.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that neither the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop in dispute nor the same was lying locked since February, 1997. The tenant was conducting a Cloth business in the premises under the name and style; "M/s Ajanta Textile". It was denied that he had shifted his business to shop No.9, Guru Nanak Complex, Dr. Gujjar Mal Road, Ludhiana. On a consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, both the authorities concurrently concluded that landlord-Tarsem Lal (PW1) appeared in support of his claim and proved his case. Likewise, his other two witnesses, namely, Bal Kishan (PW2) and Sushil Kumar (PW4), also corroborated the case set out in the ejectment petition. Sushil Kumar, Lower Division Clerk of Punjab State Electricity Board (PW4), testified that the consumption of electricity qua meter No.SK-09/0165 was nominal. Although, in his cross-examination, he (PW4) deposed that the said meter was installed in building No.338, whereas the demised premises formed part of property No.337. Accordingly, it was maintained by the landlord that the said witness was won over by the tenant. In any case, tenant could always produce the electricity bills to prove that the premises was indeed in use. Rather, in his cross-examination, he conceded that he had not brought any electricity bills. Although, the record summoned by the tenant from the Income Tax Department was proved as Ex.RW3/7, but nothing could be deciphered therefrom to infer that the tenant was transacting any business in the premises. So much so, tenant himself admitted in his statement that the firm was registered in the year 1976-77, but he had not brought any record to show that he indeed was working in the premises from 1997 to 2004. He also conceded that he could not tell as to from whom he has been buying the Cloth to run his business. Still further, Anil Kumar (RW2) admitted in his cross-examination that the tenant had a shop at Dr. Gujjar Mal Road where, he was purported to have shifted his business.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;