VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, vide which appeal filed by the respondent-landlord, was allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute and two months time was given to vacate the premises. The case set up by the respondent-landlord was that he was owner of the shop in dispute and Shri Yashpal Bhalla, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, was statutory tenant in the shop in dispute @ Rs. 7/- per month.
(2.) SHRI Yashpal Bhalla died about four years prior to the filing of petition, which was instituted on 5.5.1990, leaving behind the present petitioners as his heirs and thus they became statutory tenants by operation of law. Ejectment of the petitioners was sought on the following grounds :- A. That the tenants are in arrears of rent since 1.3.1983. B. That the tenants have failed to pay electricity bills amounting to Rs. 230/-. C. That the tenants have ceased to occupy the premises in dispute without any just and reasonable cause for a period of more than four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition as they were not occupying the shop since 1.1.1987. D. That due to non-user of the premises, the value and utility of the premises in dispute has considerably been diminished. The building has developed cracks and dampness has caused immense damage to the building. E. That the tenants are guilty of such acts of waste which have substantially lowered the value and utility of the premises. On the first date of hearing rent, electricity charges along with costs and interest were tendered in the Court of learned Rent Controller on behalf of the respondent-tenants, which was accepted under protest. The petition was contested and objection was taken that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was alleged that the shop in question was taken on rent by Bhag Mal, father of Yashpal in the year 1963 and the tenancy was inherited by his legal heirs. Taking of the premises on rent by Yashpal was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : "1. Whether the tender is valid ? OPA 2. Whether the respondents have ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for a continuous period of four months without any just and reasonable cause as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the respondents are guilty of such acts, which have diminished the value and utility of the premises in dispute ? OPP 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 5. Relief."
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller decided all the issues against the landlord and dismissed the rent application. Before the Appellate Authority findings on issue Nos. 1 and 3 were not challenged and therefore, these were affirmed. However, the learned lower Appellate Court on the basis of evidence on record, reversed the findings on issue No. 4 and held that the petition was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This finding of the Appellate Court is not under challenge before this Court, and, therefore, the only dispute is with regard to issue No. 2 i.e. "Whether the respondent had ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for continuous period of four months without any just and reasonable cause as alleged." The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence had given a finding that tenants were continuously doing their business in the shop in dispute and under no stretch of imagination it could be held that respondents have ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for a continuous period of four years (months ?), preceding the filing of the petition. Finding has been reversed by the learned Lower Appellate Authority by holding as under :- "The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that when the respondents have failed to produce the documents in possession, adverse inference has to be drawn against them, the contention is not without merit. Admittedly, electricity connection in the shop in dispute is in existence. Geeta Bhalla states that the payment of the electricity charges has been made and that she was in possession of the documents regarding payment of charges but the same has not been brought on the file. Further, as already discussed above, according to Geeta Bhalla, stationery and books business is being run in the said shop and the said goods have been purchased from her husband's brother but no bill or receipt showing the file. Thus, when the documentary evidence in possession of the respondents has not been produced, adverse inference against their version that the shop never remained closed can safely be drawn. In this respect, I happen to draw strong support from Shah Mool Chand Lal Chand v. Parvathi Bai, 1989(1) RCR(Rent) 299 : 1989(1) RCR(Rent) 483 : 1989 Haryana Rent Reporter 102; Shri Ram Parkash of Amritsar v. M/s. Sita Ram Chuni Lal, 1989 Haryana Rent Reporter 450; Ram Chander (died) by Lrs. v. Puran Chand of Ambala Cantt, 2005(2) RCR(Rent) 599 : 1989(2) RCR(Rent) 487 : 1989 Haryana Rent Reporter 604 and Hem Kund Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. Bhatinda v. Suresh Motor Car Company, near Old Bus Stand, Bhatinda, 1991(2) PLR 476. Thus, when the respondents have failed to produce the documentary evidence in their possession to show that the business was being carried out in the shop and that the same never remained closed, I find no reason as to why the version and the evidence adduced by the appellant be not accepted. So, it has to be believed that the shop remained closed since more than four months, preceding the presentation of the petition, the finding of the lower Court on issue No. 2 is, therefore, reversed." ;