This civil revision dismissed. The High Court found no grounds for interference with the appellate order which had upheld the eviction of petitioners due to non-occupation of the shop for over four months, supported by witness evidence and commissioner reports.
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.
Civil Revision No. 2658 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2658 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.1.2014.
Shakuntla Devi and others
.......Petitioners
Versus
Jain School Society (Registered)
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondent. ****
SABINA, J.
Respondent had filed petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the petitioners had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and that the demised premises was in a dilapidated condition.
Petitioners, in their written statement, denied the fact that they were in arrears of rent. The other contentions in the ejectment petition, were denied.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller.
1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the shop, the details of which are mentioned in para no.2 of the petition in view of the grounds taken in the petition.
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present
Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.05 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2658 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
form? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner is guilty of suppressing true and material facts from the knowledge of the Court? OPR
4. Whether petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition? OPR
5. Whether petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR
6. Whether petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR
7. Relief.
Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 2.12.2009 dismissed the ejectment petition. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.2.2011 and ejectment of the petitioners was ordered on the ground that the petitioners had ceased to occupy the shop in question for a period of more than four months preceding the presentation of the petition.
The Appellate Authority, while allowing the petition filed by the respondents, has held that witnesses examined by the landlord, had deposed that the shop in question was lying closed and no business was being run in the said premises. Petitioners, on the other hand, had failed to prove on record any electricity bills or bills regarding purchase of material for the business run in the shop. Petitioners had also failed to prove on record any bill or receipt issued to any customer. Local Commissioner, who had visited the shop in question, gave the report that when he visited the shop on 16.9.2004, 25.9.2004 and 28.9.2004, the same was
Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.05 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2658 of 2011 (O&M)
-3-
lying closed. The said Local Commissioner was not summoned by the petitioners as a witness for the purposes of cross-examination. Second Local Commissioner also deposed that when he visited the premises on 1.10.2008, the electricity fittings and meter were in a bad condition. As per the report of the said Local Commissioner, the shop was lying closed for a long time. In these circumstances, the Appellate Court rightly held that the petitioners were liable to be evicted as they had ceased to occupy the shop in question for a period of more than four months preceding the presentation of the petition.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
January 28, 2014 Gurpreet
Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.05 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise interference under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 in the said appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shakuntla Devi and others
Jain School Society (Registered)
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
