Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.)The learned Rent Controller, upon, Rent Petition No.113/2 of 2010, rendered a verdict of eviction, vis-avis, the tenant, qua the demised premises, on proven grounds (a) of, the tenant falling, hence, in arrears of rent, w.e.f. 1.12.2007 to 14.03.2012 @ Rs.2000.00 per month, (b) and, upon, the ground appertaining to the respondent/tenant, rather ceasing to occupy the demised premises, for a continuous period of two years. In, the, operative portion of the verdict, recorded by the learned Rent Controller, the hereinafter extracted, hence, apt portions, stands, borne therein:
"In view of my findings on the issues No.1,2,3, 4 and 5 above, petition succeeds and the same is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to recover amount to the tune of Rs.2,09,990.00 i.e. arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,000.00 per month plus statutory interest @9% per annum w.e.f. Dec., 2007 to 14.3.2012 and amended interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 15.3.2012 till today i.e. 18.3.2015, and respondent is directed to pay/deposit the aforesaid entire amount within a period of 30 days from today i.e. 18.3.2015, the date of passing of this order, falling which respondent shall be liable to be evicted from the demised premises."

The tenant being aggrieved aggrieved therefrom, hence, preferred an appeal, before the learned Appellate Authority, and, upon the apposite Rent Appeal No.13-S/14 of 2015, the learned Appellate Authority, hence, recorded a verdict, in disaffirmation, vis-a-vis, the verdict recorded by the learned Rent Controller. The landlord, being aggrieved therefrom, hence, assails the verdict pronounced by the learned Appellate Authority, upon, Rent Appeal No.13-S/14 of 2015.

(2.)Briefly stated the facts of the case, are ,that the petitioner/landlord has instituted the rent petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the premises i.e. one shop situated in ground floor of four storeyed building which stand built on the land comprised in Khasra No.667, Sanjauli Bazar, Shimla-6, H.P. It has been pleaded by the petitioner/landlord that the demised premises is situated in Municipal Corporation area and she is the owner of the demised premises. The demised premises is non residential. The respondent is tenant over the demised premises at monthly rent of Rs.2000.00, and, it was rented out in the year 1995 to the respondent. The respondent is in arrears of rent from 1.12.2007 to 30.11.2010 at the rate of Rs.2,000.00 per mensem which come to Rs.72,000.00, and, the interest at the rate of 9% per annum which come to Rs.9,990.00 and total arrears of rent Rs.81,990.00. The respondent has also ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of two years prior to the filing of the present petition without any reasonable cause. The shop in question was rented out for carrying out the business of service station of vehicles to the respondent. But, no work of business of service station of vehicles has been carried out for th last two years and the demised premises are lying locked which has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. Hence the petition.
(3.)The respondent/tenant, in his reply, filed to the eviction petition, has taken preliminary objections qua non existence of relationship of tenant and landlord, maintainability, estoppel etc. On merits, the respondent has admitted that the demised premises is situated in Sanjauli Bazaar, within the Municipal area. But, the respondent has denied that the petitioner is the landlord and he is the tenant of the petitioner over the demised premises. The respondent has pleaded that Sh. Rakesh Kumar was his landlord to whom the rent was paid by him. However, the respondent has admitted that the demised premises is non residential and its monthly rent is Rs.2,000/ and it was rented out to him. The respondent has pleaded that the shop in question was taken on rent by him from Sh. Rakesh Kumar for business and he has right too run business in the demised premises. The rent of the demised premises was offered to Sh. Rakesh Kumar, who had been receiving the rent previously and the rent was even tendered to him by way of cheque through registered letter. But the register letter was not received by Rakesh Kumar for the reasons best known to him and he is not liable to pay rent alongwith interest to Rakesh Kumar. Rakesh Kumar has not intimated him about the transfer of rights/attornment of the right in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has no right, title or interest to claim the rent along with interest from him. The respondent has also denied that the demised premises remained locked for a continous period of 12 months, prior to the filing of the present petition without reasonable cause. But the respondent has pleaded that the demised premises never remained closed. He has some dispute and difference with Swaraj Mazda Company which has to pay about Rs. Forty lakh to him. Therefor,e his business come to stand still. He had to bear loss in business and the shop is still open and it never remained closed for continuous period of 12 months.