SOM DUTT DHIMAN Vs. MANDIR ARYA SAMAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the tenants/petitioners against the order of the learned Appellate Authority-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. affirming the order of eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the demised premises which consists of a shop belonging to the respondent/landlord passed by the learned Rent Controller (I), Sirmaur District at Nahan

(2.) The eviction petition under Section 14 of the Act was instituted by the landlord/respondent through its Secretary on the grounds (a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent and (b) that he has ceased to occupy the suit premises continuously for a period of 12 months prior to the institution of the petition without any reasonable cause. These averments were denied. The parties went to evidence on three settled issues which included determination of the arrears of rent, question as to whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises and particularly on the maintainability of the petition.

(3.) On the issue of arrears of rent, PW1 Shri Darshan Lal proved on record payment of rent upto 31.3.2002. thereafter there was no payment. Rent of Rs.40/- per month was admitted by the tenant and it was pleaded that the rent from April, 2002 to July, 2002 had been sent by money order but postal authorities had not delivered this money to the landlord. The learned Rent Controller holds that the rent was due from 1.4.2002 to 31.10.2003, that is for 19 months which works out to Rs.760/- and holds that a sum of Rs.51/- was due as interest. On the question of ceasing to occupy, the learned Rent Controller on the evidence of PW1 Shri Darshan Lal and PW3 Shri Ajay Kakkar, who was a neighbour of the tenant/petitioner holds that the premises were not occupied by the tenant continuously for a period of twelve months prior to the institution of the petition and that no reasonable cause for not doing so was proved on the record. PW2 Shri Rakesh Kumar from the Electricity Board proved on record Ex. P-2 which proved that the electricity meter was installed in the disputed premises. There was reading of 1895 units on 11.5.2001 and thereafter there was no consumption of electricity between 11.05.2001 to 17.07.2001 as also when the meter reader again visited the premises in September, 2001, November, 2001, January, 2002, March, 2002, May, 2002 and July, 2002 when the words P.L. (premises locked) were recorded. The petition was filed on 18.7.2002. Section 14 (2)(v) of the Act provides:-