- (1.) This judgment shall dispose of two Civil Revision Nos. i.e. 5538 of 2010 and 8363 of 2010 as both the revision petitions have arisen out of the same dispute between the parties. However, for brevity, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 5538 of 2010. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 15.3.2008 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby her eviction has been ordered from the demised premises in dispute and the judgment dated 10.6.2010 of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana dismissing her appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered by the authorities below on the ground that petitioner has ceased to occupy the demised premises which were lying closed without any reasonable cause since 1999 till the filing of the petition on February 01, 2002. In the written statement, petitioner has denied the aforesaid ground as taken by the respondents and has taken a specific stand that previously he was carrying on the business of PCO-cum-Confectionary and stationery in the shop in dispute but as the business of PCO was not worth any cost, she has shifted the same to her residential house and has continued the business of confectionary and stationery in the shop in dispute.
(3.) While ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premised on the aforesaid ground the Rent Controller found that the petitioner has failed to show any evidence to support her contention that she was occupying the shop in dispute for the period w.e.f. 01st August, 1999 till the filing of the petition. While allowing the ejectment petition, it was also observed that the respondent-landlord who stepped into witness box to discharge the initial burden upon her to prove the aforesaid ground, has not been even cross-examined by the petitioner, with regard to the aforesaid facts. It may also be noticed that even brother of the petitioner who had appeared as RW 2 has stated in his statement that petitioner had shifted the PCO from the demised premises in the year 2003 and was receiving the bills upto the year 2003 showing the renting of the PCO. However, no such record has been produced before the Court by the petitioner. It may also be noticed that the question "whether petitioner has ceased occupy the shop in dispute for a continuous period w.e.f. 01st August, 1999 till the filing of the petition", is essentially a question of fact. Both the authorities below, on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding that petitioner has failed to place on record any evidence to show that she was occupying shop in dispute for the said period. Even before this Court, relevant evidence could not be pointed out to support the case of the petitioner.;