JASMIT DHINGRA Vs. GOVERDHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment of the Authority under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act dated 2nd December, 1972, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the judgment of the Rent Controller was dismissed with costs.

(2.) The petitioner was a tenant of a premises located in Karmo Deorbi, Amritsar. The petitioner originally used to carry on manufacturing business on the premises but subsequently the manufacturing business was shifted to East Mohan Nagar but the office and godown were retained in the demised premises. The landlord, who is the respondent in this revision petition, filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of over four months immediately preceding the ejectment application. As rent was paid on the first date of hearing, only the second ground survived for determination. The Rent Controller framed the necessary issue and the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent had ceased to occupy the premises as alleged by the landlord. The Appellate Authority took the same view and this necessitated the filing of the present revision petition.

(3.) The principal and in fact the only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Appellate Authority did not consider the evidence of the landlord and that, as the onus of the issue was on the landlord, the appeal could only be dismissed if it was found that the landlord had established his case. It is no doubt true that the learned Appellate Authority considered the tenant's evidence in detail but did not advert to the evidence led by the landlord. This circumstance, however, does not affect the merits of the case, as the evidence produced by the landlord was considered in detail by the learned Rent Controller and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail, on any reasonable ground, the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Rent Controller. The landlord-respondent had produced an official of the Electricity Department to how that for the last one year or more almost no electricity was being used in the office and the godown and that from this it could reasonably be inferred that the premises was not being used for any purpose, the tenant's contention that the finished goods were being stored in the godown was negatived on the basis of a number of circumstances. It was observed by the learned Kent Controller that if the manufactured goods were transported of the godown the tenant could have produced evidence about the transportation of those articles and could also have produced his account books to show expenditure on transportation. Again if the godown was used for storage of finished goods, some arrangements for safety would have been made tad evidence could have been led in that respect. On the basis of these and other circumstances, the conclusion arrived at was that the premises was in fact not being used. I having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am unable to find any fault with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Rent controller and the Appellate Authority on the only issue in the case. Consequently I find no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. The petitioner is allowed two months time to vacate the premises.