J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord Kanwal Kumar sought the ejectment of his tenant Ram Parkash who was inducted in the shop in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- with effect from 1.1.1978, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises without reasonable cause for a continuous period of more than four months. The stand taken by the tenant was that he never ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than four months as alleged. In fact his son Rajinder Kumar is suffering from mental disease since 1976, therefore, he had to attend him and he could not do his work regularly. In addition to this, he, that is the tenant, was also injured in the year 1979. Due to head injury he was unable to attend his work and open the shop regularly from April, 1979 till November, 1980. According to the tenant, the shop in dispute remained closed for a few days and not for more than four months continuously. He admitted that the electric connection was disconnected on 20th of June, 1983 but the same was done due to non-payment of the dues. The learned Rent Controller after going through the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the tenant closed the shop for a period of more than four months, that is, from 21.2.1979 to 26.12.1979 without reasonable cause. It view of this finding the eviction order was passed on 27.8.1982. In appeal the appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller with the observations that "I come to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that he ceased to occupy the demised premises without reasonable cause. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on issue No. 2 does not call for any interference." Thus the eviction order was maintained. The learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner submitted that non-consumption of the electricity was no ground to come to the conclusion that the tenant cease to occupy the premises. Moreover, argued the learned counsel the premises were never left unoccupied as the machinery of the tenant was lying therein and, therefore, it will be deemed to have been in occupation of the tenant throughout. According to the learned counsel the shop was closed occasionally and not continuously for a period of four months without any reasonable cause as contemplated under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. He also submitted that "cease to occupy" means that the premises are left unattended. In support of this contention he referred to Banarsi Dass v. Surinder Kumar, 1975 RCR 567. He also cited Karam Chand Joshi v. Shri Kartar Singh and ors., 1977 RCR 327 to contend that non-consumption of electricity was of no consequence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that occupation means actual user. Keeping of machinery in the demised premises will not amount to occupation unless the business for which the shop was let out was carried on. In support of this contention he referred to Bhargavi Amma v. Stephen, 1979(1) RCJ 86 and Kimti Lal v. Seth Nanak Chand, 1967 PLR 799.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record.;