In a revision against rent authorities' finding that the tenant ceased occupation due to non-use and death of a co-tenant, this single-judge court dismissed the petition, upholding the finding of fact that premises were vacant and denied request for time to vacate.
Dismissal of civil revision and denial of request for time to vacate premises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1492 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:22.04.2009
Lalita Kumari and others
...Petitioners
versus
Mohan Lal
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the respondent.
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. The admitted case was that the property had been let out to Dharampal and his sister Raksha Devi. Dharampal was admittedly unavailable to run the business and his whereabouts were not known. The co-tenant Raksha Devi died and her legal representatives namely the daughters were impleaded. It was contended on behalf of the daughters that they were running the business after the death of Raksha Devi.
Civil Revision No.1492 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 -
the legal requirement of cessation to occupy ought to be such that it could never be inferred from the non-payment of income tax and sales tax returns that the business was not being run. If two views are possible on a given set of facts and the authorities below have accepted the contention of the landlord and rejected the contention that the persons claiming to be tenants that the landlord had proved that there was no one in occupation of the premises, I have no reason to take a different view in revision on a consideration of a pure question of fact. The findings of the authorities below accord with the evidence led on facts and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
- 3 -
Civil Revision No.1492 of 2009 (O&M)
but having regard to the evidence that the persons claiming to be legal representatives of the tenant have ceased to occupy, I see no reason to accommodate the request.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE
22.04.2009 sanjeev
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision should be allowed to set aside the finding that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to time to vacate the premises.
Lalita Kumari and others
Mohan Lal
K. KANNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
