This is a revision petition challenging an ejectment order passed against tenants on the ground that they ceased to occupy the shop. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings based on evidence showing the shop remained closed and without electricity usage. The petition was dismissed.
[No relief]
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.
C.R. No. 1286 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 5450-CII of 2012 in/and
C.R. No. 1286 of 2012 DATE OF DECISION: February 28, 2012
Mahesh Kumar and others
.........APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Chaman Lal
......RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
C.R. No. 1286 of 2012
2
Commissioner submitted the following report:-
“1. I was appointed as Local Commissioner by this Hon'ble Court on 7.8.2004 vide which I have to make report regarding the condition of shop whether it is open or close.
2. After obtaining the orders from the Court, I visited the spot at about 2.30 P.M. on the same day in the presence of witnesses. The shop in dispute was identified by petitioner-Chaman Lal which is situated in New Grain Market, Sangrur. To the left of disputed shop there is shop of Charan Dass and to the right of disputed shop there is shop of Chaman Lal. The shop in dispute was closed at the time of my visit. The main gate of the shop in dispute was of wooden and shop was locked. There is dust over the gate and the lock was found effected with rust. There were two “Cherai Machines” standing before the shop in dispute. I prepared memo of presence and took the signatures of the witnesses present there as token of their presence. Chaman Lal petitioner also signed the memo of presence.
Hence, the report is submitted for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.”
C.R. No. 1286 of 2012
3
another tenant (being brothers), nowhere stated that Mahesh Kumar was carrying on his business in the shop. The fact that they were the tenants and did not show that there was any business transaction taking place at the shop was also noticed and accordingly, vide order dated 27.09.2010, the ejectment order was passed. The said ejectment order has been upheld by the appellate authority on 11.11.2011 and resultantly, the present petition has been filed.
C.R. No. 1286 of 2012
4
is highly unlikely that any business can be carried out in the absence of electricity. Both the Courts below after examining the oral evidence and documentary evidence have come to a very valid finding that the tenants had ceased to occupy. There is no illegality or perversity in the orders which can warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine.
28.02.2012 shivani
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in concluding that the tenants had ceased to occupy the premises, thereby justifying the ejectment order.
Mahesh Kumar and others
Chaman Lal
G.S. SANDHAWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
