- (1.) This is tenants revision petition against whom the application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.
(2.) The tenant's ejectment form the shop in dispute, was sought on the ground that he had ceased to occupy the same for more than six month and was not doing any business therein. In the written statement filed on his behalf, this allegation was controverted. It was pleaded that he was in fact, carrying on his business in the shop, it had never been put under lock and key and that this fact could be verified through spot inspection either by the Court itself or by the appointment of a Local Commissioner. On the pleadings of the parties, the only issue framed was whether the respondent was liable to be ejected from the shop, in dispute, on the ground pleaded in paragraph No. 2(b) of the petition The Learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that this ground for ejectment pleaded by the landlord was ill-founded and consequently, dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and held that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of more than four months without reasonable cause. As a result, the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the ejectment application was liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the necessary ingredients of section 13(2)(v) of the Haryana Urban Control or Rent & Eviction) Act were not pleaded in the ejectment application. The only allegation made in the ejectment application was that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop in question, for more than six months and was not doing any business therein, whereas the statutory requirement is that a landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of a tenant if the latter had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Asha Bawa v. Champa Dhawan, 1981 2 RCR(Rent) 721.;