- (1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under sub-section (5) of section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent 14 Restriction Act (for short the Act) against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated January 14, 1975, whereby his eviction from the premises in question has been ordered on the ground that he ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of 4 months without reasonable cause prior to filing of the application by the landlord-respondent on May , 1972.
(2.) Mr. H. L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before me to assail the impugned order (i) since the respondent-landlord did not specify the span of four months for which the premises in question remained unoccupied, the application deserves to be dismissed for that short reasons (ii) the evidence has not been appreciated by the Appellate Authority keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and thus the conclusion recorded by it stands vitiated.
(3.) In support of his first contention, the learned counsel primarily relies on a decision or this Court in Karam Chand Joshi v. Shri Kartar Singh and ors., 1977 1 RCR(Rent) 327. The ground of eviction under section 13(2)(5) of the Act in that case too was pleaded in almost the same language as has been done in the present case. But it was not only for the reason of not specifying the period of non-occupation that the petition under section 13 of the Act was allowed by the learned Judge but it was on the basis of examining the legality and propriety of the conclusion recorded by the Appellate, Authority on appreciation of evidence that he came to the conclusion that the Appellate Authority could not possibly record the conclusion that the tenant did not occupy the premises for more than four months. The learned Judge did highlight the desirability of specifying the period of non-occupation in the petition for eviction yet it was after referring to the entire evidence led by the land-lord in that case in support of his plea that the learned Judge concluded the matter thus :- "Be that as it may, the fact remains that without fixing any period during which the premises may have remained unoccupied by the petitioner without any reasonable cause, the landlords have been trying to make all sorts of vague allegations in respect of the period during which the premises remained unoccupied. In this situation on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, I do not agree with the learned appellate authority that it could possibly be held that the tenant did not occupy the premises for more that four months I agree with Mr. Sarin learned counsel fur the respondents, "That generally a purer finding of fact does not deserve to be set aside in revision, but if on consideration of the entire evidence that has been led by the landlord-respondents it is not possible to arrive at that conclusion which has been reached by the appellate authority, then certainly it is within the powers of this Court to interfere with that finding. In this view of the matter, I reverse the finding of the appellate authority and hold that the landlords have failed to prove that the petitioner-tenant did not occupy the premises in dispute without any reasonable cause for more than fourth months. Thus, I cannot possibly hold as is urged by Mr. Sarin that the mere non-specification of the exact span of period under section 13(2)(5) of the Act should be good enough a ground to disallow the said petition.;