- (1.) The landlord-petitioners have filed this petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, dated 3rd of June, 1976 whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing their ejectment application was maintained.
(2.) The landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant on the ground, inter alia, that they require the premises for their own use and occupation and secondly, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of more than 4 months without reasonable cause. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant and on the pleading of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues 1. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds alleged in the present application excepting non-payment of rent; 2. Relief. Both these grounds pleaded by the landlords were found against them and. consequently the application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller. On appeal, the findings of the Rent Controller have been maintained by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this, the landlords have come up in revision in this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities below have acted wrongly and illegally in coming to the conclusion that the tenant was occupying the premises for more than 4 months prior to the application which was filed on 6th of October, 1972. According to the learned counsel, it was specifically pleaded in the application that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for the last more than two years and the same are locked. According to the learned counsel, the Appellate Authority has referred to the electricity bills for the year 1973-74 and, on that basis, has come to the conclusion that from 1973-74, the house in dispute has not remained closed According to him, the whole approach is apparently wrong because the relevant period is prior to the ejectment application filed on 6th October, 1972 Occupation, if any, by the tenant after the said date is irrelevant and immaterial for deciding this issue. He further contended that under the circumstances, it is for the tenant to prove that in what manner he was occupying the premises for the relevant period. In support or his contention, he has referred to Gobind Ram Chhabra v. Panna Devi,1980 2 RLR 429 and Jai Chand v. Sohan Lal and another,1974 PunLR 742.;