VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order of ejectment passed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act). The landlord Shree Santan Dharam Sabha, Bhiwani had filed an ejectment petition on the ground of non- payment of rent from 1.10.1989 to 30.6.1992 as also on the ground that the tenant has failed to use the demised premises for the last 5-1/4 years without any reasonable cause and also that the petitioner has caused material damage to the property. The rent petition was contested by the petitioner herein on the ground that the landlord has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present petition. The petition was said to be mala fide and also on the ground that the landlord by its own conduct was estopped from filing the present eviction petition. The authority of Ramesh Mishra to file the present eviction petition was also challenged.
(2.) ON merit, it was contended that the rent of the demised premises was tendered in Court along with interest and allegation of ceased to occupy was denied and it was asserted that the same was being used as a godown by the landlord (tenant ?). The petitioner herein also denied the allegation of impairment of value and utility. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- "1. Whether petition has been filed through duly authorised and competent person ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has not used the tenanted premises for the last 5- 1/4 years and the same has remained closed for the said period ? If so, to what effect ? OPP 3. Whether the tenanted premises have become unfit for the purposes, for which, it was let out ? If so to what effect ? OPP 4. Whether the petition in the present form is not maintainable ? OPR 5. Whether the respondent is entitled for special costs ? OPR 6. Relief." On issue No. 1, the landlord respondent examined Shri Ramesh Kumar Mishra as AW-1 and produced in the Court, the certificate of registration Ex. A-2 as also the memorandum from Registrar of Firms Ex. A-3 and a copy of resolution dated 2.10.1991 showing that he was authorised to institute and prosecute the litigation on behalf of petitioner Sabha. The said resolution was exhibited as Ex. A-4 and in view of the documentary and material evidence produced before the Rent Controller, issue No. 1 was decided in its favour. On issue No. 2, the landlord produced Ex. PW-8/A i.e., the application moved by the petitioner-tenant to the Assessing Authority Bhiwani for cancellation of Registration Certificate of his firm. This application was moved on the ground that he had closed his business from 31.3.1989. On the said application, report Ex. PW-8/B was made by the Inspector to the effect that he had visited the spot and found the business was closed. The statement of witness was examined wherein he stated that the shop was lying closed for 3 to 4 years. Cancellation of Registration Certificate dated 12.2.1990 Ex. PW-8/D was also produced. The landlord also examined Shri Shyam Singh Bailiff as Ex. AW-7 who testified that on 4.12.1996, he had gone for execution of warrants issued from the Court of Smt. Bimlesh Tanwar, the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siwani at Bhiwani and enquired about Bharat Bhushan and Company, wherein it was intimated that the business by the tenant was closed since long. The report was exhibited as Ex. PW-7/B. As against this documentary and oral evidence, the petitioner tenant examined Ravinder Kumar as RW-3 who stated that his shop was in front of the demised premises and he has seen the tenant running the business from the demised shop for the last 5 years. This statement was recorded on 23.10.1999, thus, he was deposing about the situation from 1994, whereas the present petition was filed on 31.7.1992. Another witness Nand Kishore RW-4 deposed that he was running the business just opposite to the disputed one and stated that he had seen the demised premises open continuously and regularly since 1989. However, in cross- examination, he also admitted that due to ill health, he had closed his shop.
(3.) THE petitioner tenant himself appeared in the witness box as RW-6 and disposed that the shop was being used as a godown. He stated that initially the shop was in the name of Bharat Bhushan and Company and now he was running the business in the name of M/s Amba Ji Traders. However, the account books with regard to period prior to 1995 was not placed on record with the plea that they were lost in the flood. However, he admitted the cancellation of his registration certificate. He had produced Madan Lal as RW-7 who deposed that he worked with the petitioner tenant for a period from 1980 to 1991-92. He claimed that the income of Bharat Bhushan and Company is Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. However, no income tax return was produced on record. Thus on appreciation of evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the shop was lying closed. Learned Rent Controller also drew adverse inference against the petitioner tenant for suppressing the material evidence and for said purpose, placed reliance in Shri Gobind Ram Chhabra v. Smt. Panna Devi, 1990(2) Rent Law Reporter 429 and Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal, 1999(2) Rent Control Reporter 710. The contention of the petitioner-tenant that allegation regarding ceased to occupy mentioned in the petition was vague and therefore, no reliance can be placed on them was rejected by holding that non-mentioning of specific date in pleadings could not be treated to be vague, thus denying the right of ejectment. The contention of the petitioner-tenant that essential ingredients of Clause 5 of Section 13(2) of the Act were not pleaded as it was not mentioned without reasonable cause and also rejected by holding that the pleadings are to be read as a whole and the Courts should not merely took to the form of pleadings. The Court further held that it is for tenant to prove that the closure was for reasonable cause.;