Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmatma Kaur And Anr. vs H.U.F. Rajinder Parshad And Sons on 25 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR2000P&H152, (2000)124PLR169, AIR 2000 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 152, (1999) 2 RENTLR 703, (1999) 2 RENCR 423, 2000 HRR 37, (2000) 1 PUN LR 169
ORDER S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. The respondent-landlord had filed petitioner for ejectment of the petitioners before the Rent Controller, Ferozepure. The same was dismissed. The appeal filed by the respondent before the appellate authority was allowed and hence the petitioner-tenants have filed this revision petition.
2. The shop which the petitioners are occupying is the subject-matter of the rent petition. Ground for eviction is that the petitioners have ceased to occupy the said shop without any cause since the death of original tenant Pritam Singh. It may be stated that in they very building there is another part in which the petitioners are tenants. However, the petition and this appeal are confined to the shop only.
3. The contentions of the respondent is that Pritam Singh was the original tenant in the shop and the petitioners became tenants by operation of law after the death of Pritam Singh. The contention of the petitioners is that the plea of non-occupation of the premises is incorrect and it was not taken in an earlier petition. It may be mentioned that the prayer for arrears of rent does not arise in view of the fact that no issue in this regard is framed. In this revision also, the arguments are confined to the issue of non-user only.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that except the allegation that the petitioners have ceased to occupy the shop in question for a continuous period of of more than four months without sufficient cause, therefore is no specific pleadings as to since when the shop is not being used and that no particulars were given. He has pointed out that the allegation of non-user is denied in the written statement. In the written statement there is also a plea that the plea of non-user was not taken in another ejectment petition which was dismissed on 31-7-1978. He has contended that earlier petition was filed on 15-5-1978 while the present ejectment petition was filed on 8-6-1978.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the evidence led by the respondent is not sufficient to prove that the demised premises are not used. A.W. 1 is Puran Chand Aggarwal, Draftsman. He has deposed that when he went to see the disputed shop it was found closed. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he is seeing the shop almost daily. He has proved the site plan Ex. A1.
7. AW 2 is Mohan Lal. He is a Postman and has deposed that about fouryears back, he used to see Pritam Singh sitting at the shop and that he used to see a few electric fans lying in the shop. Pritam Singh had died three years back and he also deposed that from the last 3 or 3-1/4 years he is seeing the demised shop lying closed and that during that period helias never seen the shop open. This witness has admitted the fact that the family of Pritam Singh resides in Dal Chand Building (it is the same building) but that portion is a different portion from the demised shop. He has of course stated that he never went to the said shop to deliver any letter. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the deposition of this witness (AW 2) is vague and cannot be relied upon. As against this learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the deposition of the Daljit Singh petitioner who has been examined as RW 1. He has stated in the deposition that he sells electric fans and also gives fans on hire basis. He also stated that he is running his business in the demised premises and that he never kept the demise premises closed for any length of time. In the cross-examination he has stated that he also runs his business in a shop in Main Bazar, Ferozepure Cantt. He has stated that he has never been employed anywhere so far. He has stated that he is the only son of his parents and that he opens his shop in the main market regularly and the demise premises as well. He has also stated that he is'not Income-tax payer. He has admitted that he has no mechanic or servant and that he works alone. He has also stated that there is na electric metre in the demised premises at present. In reply to a suggestion made to him that the he has ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously since the death of his father i.e. Oct. 1975, he has stated that it is not correct.
8. Regarding the prior ejectment petition learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the said ejectment petition did not pertain to the shop in question in this ejectment petition and, therefore, the raising of plea of non-user of the shop did not arise. It is not disputed that in the very building, there is a residential premises of the petitioner. Certified copy of the plaint in the earlier ejectment petition is at Ex.R. 2. A perusal of the same shows that it does not pertain to the present shop in question. The description of the premises is in the heading of that plaint. It is as under :
"Application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for an order directing the respondent to deliver the actual possession of 8/113 A upper, storey Dal Chand building, Ferozepore s Cantt."
Therefore, the non-mention of the non-user of the present shop in the said petition does not go against the evidence led by the respondent.
9. Considering all the evidence, the appellate authority has rejected the stand taken by the petitioners and accepted, the case of the respondent. There is no reason to show why the finding of the appellate authority should be disturbed. The petitioner, though according to him is using the shop and. is selling the electric fans etc., has admitted that there is no electric metre in the demised premises at present. He has not shown as to from where he is getting the electricity. More over he has no servant or mechanic to help him and he is having another shop in the main bazar. He cannot run both the shops, alone. Moreover, the petitioner Daljit has examined himself only as his witness and has not produced any other evidence. If the, petitioners are using the shop in question, they are the persons having best evidence regarding its use. If the petitioner are taking electricity from somewhere else, they could have shown the same. The petitioners could have produced their books of account and when this not done, adverse infererence can also be drawn against them in view of the judgment in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1413.
10. When it is held that the appellants, are not using the shop it is also found that no reason is stated by the appellants as to why they are not using it and, therefore, there is no reasonable cause shown by them for the same.
11. In view of the above reasons, finding of appellate authority that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause cannot be disturbed.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the pleadings in support of non-user of the premises are vague and, therefore, no eviction order can be passed because of the same. In the rent petition, the pleadings in this regard are as under :
"That the respondents have ceased to occupy the shop in question for a continuous period of more than four months without sufficient cause."
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the landlord-respondent has mentioned nothing except mentioning the law on this point and hence eviction order cannot be upheld. The relevant provision in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") reads as under :--
"that where the building is situated in a place other than a hill sta tion, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause."
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me the case in Civil Revision No. 1536 of 1980 titled Puran Singh Tailor Master v. Ram Murti son of Narain Dass. In that case the learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the petition for eviction on the ground that the allegations were quite vague. Learned Single Judge has referred to the above mentioned provision of the Act. Learned Single Judge has observed in the said case als under :-
" Apart from that, the allegations in the ejectment application to this effect are very vague. What has been stated in paragraph 5 thereof is" that the respondent has permanently shifted his residence and business to the above mentioned address and is not occupying the portion in question for the last about four months continously. In the reply filed thereto, it has been stated that the respondent and his family had been and is living in the house in question and the children of the petitioner are getting eduction in D.C. Model School and D.A.V. College, Ferozepore. Thus, the allegations made in the application were quite vague, as no period during which the tenant ceased to occupy the premises was mentioned therein. Merely the reproduction of the wording of statute was not sufficient to warrant the order of ejectment. Reference in this respect be made to Karam Chand Joshi v. Shri Kartar Singh .
15. The question, therefore, now comes for my consideration is that the respondents can be non-suited by holding that his plea in the rent petition is vague. The Supreme Court has taken a different view in the case of Madan Gopal Kanodia v. Mamraj Maniram AIR 1976 SC 461 It has been observed in paragraph 26 of that case as under (at Page 470) :
".... We are unable to see any substantial variation between the pleadings of the plaintiff and the evidence led by him at the trial. It is well settled that pleadings are loosely drafted in the Courts and the Courts should not scrutinise the pleading with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds. In our opinion, the finding of the High Court that there was wide gap between the pleadings and the proof is not at all borne out from the record of the present case."
16. Again in the case of Smt. Manjushri Raha v. B.L. Gupta AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1158, it has been observed as under (at Page 1161) :--
" We have perused the plaint before the Claims Tribunal, which is rather loosely drafted, but it clearly contains the relief of compensation even against Gupta and Ram Swaroop driver. The High Court has pointed out that even though there is no clear plea of negligence in the claim of Raha, the facts alleged and proved in the case clearly show that Ram Swaroop the driver of the M. P. Speedways Company was both rash and negligent. Pleadings have to be interpreted not with formalistic rigour but with latitude or awareness of low legal literacy of poor people."
17. Because of the above view taken by the Supreme Court I find that the petitioners cannot get any help from the judgement in the case of Puran Singh Tailor Master v. Ram Murti son of Narain (supra). The judgement in the case of Karam Chand Joshi v. Shri Kartar Singh (supra) cited by the learned Single Judge in his judgement in the case of Puran Singh Tailor Master v. Ram Murti son of Narain Dass (supra) is also ajudgement of Single Judge of this Court and, therefore, the view taken by the Supreme Court shall prevail.
18. Keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Supreme Court when the respondent in the eviction petition pleaded that the tenant has ceased to occupy the shop in question for a continuous period of four months without sufficient cause, I find no reason to deprive the respondent of the order of eviction which he had obatined in view of the Supreme Court judgements quoted above.
19. In the result, this petition is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed.