(1.) The Revision herein is against the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
(2.) The landlord sought eviction of tenant on various grounds inclusive of that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop in question for a period of more than four months without reasonable cause. Since the eviction has been ordered on the only ground that the petitioner ceased to occupy the shop for the statutory period mentioned in the Act, the arguments in this Court have been addressed only on this point. The Appellate Authority dealt with the issue aforesaid in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10. Paragraphs 8, 9 and part of the para 10 read as follows:-
(3.) Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contends that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller are not supported by the evidence available on record. Highlighting his contention referred to above, he states that the Appellate Authority returned a finding that the petitioner was running a shop at Nissing and from the reading of the statement of the petitioner it would appear that he never made such a statement. Mr. Goel is only partly right. So far as the petitioner-tenant is concerned, he did not state with regard to his running second shop but his witness RW-2 candidly admitted this fact. Confronted with this situation, Mr. Goel contends that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority has disbelieved the statement of Mool Chand RW-2 and that being so, the whole of the statement of RW-2 should have been discarded. It may be recalled that the statement of RW-2 Mool Chand has been discarded on the ground that he is a tenant of adjoining shop under the respondent-landlord and that landlord had filed eviction proceedings against him as well. For the reasons mentioned above, the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were justified in not placing any reliance on RW-2 in support of the contention of the petitioner-tenant that he was still occupying the shop in dispute. That, however, does not mean that admissions made by him on a material point which turn in favour of the respondent-landlord cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the controversy in hand.