CIVIL APPEAL 2908 of 2008 on 26 January 1992

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes2.To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes

K. Kannan, J (oral).

1. The only point which is urged by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that on the day when the petition was filed thelandlord had not proved that the tenant had ceased to occupy thepremises. He relied on the entry in the Meter Reader's reportAnnexure P-1 that while the property had remained locked on two earlieroccasions when the Meter Reader Ganga Bishan had visited on 26.7.1991and 26.11.1991, on the subsequent date on 26.1.1992 the property hadnot been locked and he had also recorded the meter reading as 1162 andon yet another visit of the property the meter reading was taken at theproperty as 1163. According to him this was decisive for non-suiting thepetition for eviction when ground of cessation of occupation of the premisesby the tenant.

on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Ram Gopal Vs. MathraDass 1990 (2) RCR 66 that cessation shall continue till the date of filing ofthe petition. His contention now, which he had urged even before theCourts below and which had been adverted to in the impugned order, isthat the mere fact that a shop had been opened to a Meter Reader for entryto take a reading does not amount to proof that the tenant had not ceasedto occupy the premises. An occupation by the tenant invariably is for apurpose for putting the property to use in some way. The opening of dooror being closed are factors which would be taken along with other relevantcircumstances. While it is perfectly possible that a premises which isceased to be in occupation is opened on a particular date or a tenant whocontinues in occupation of the premises may have already closed the dooror the gate. Closure or opening that determines whether the tenantoccupies the premises or not shall have to be seen in the context of theoccupation of the premises which is a prolonged state of affairs. Statutesets out a period of four months as determinant of the fact that wouldenable a landlord to obtain eviction.

3. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authorityhave taken note of the fact that a number of registered letters sent to thetenant were received back undelivered as the shop had been lying closed.The Appellate Authority also had taken note of the Meter Reader's reportthat there had been practically no consumption of electricity. It also tooknote of the fact that the iron shutter of the shop had been eaten by rust andthick layer of dust was lying on it. In corroboration of the findings which theAppellate Authority obtained were documents AW-3/3, AW-6 and postalreceipt AW-3/7 to AW-3/14 with the post man's remarks that the shop hadbeen closed and the letters had been remaining unclaimed. It also tooknotice of the landlord's evidence as AW-3 that the shop was duly fitted withelectricity connection and electricity bills proved on record as Exs. AW-3/15

to AW3/18 that no electricity consumption had been made and that theshop had been closed. Both the authorities below, having regard to thenature of business that the tenant was said to be carrying on businessnamely Bakery business with refrigerator to store cakes, pastries and softdrinks, found that the fact that electricity was not consumed to be mostsignificant. It also noticed that the tenant had failed to produce any licenceissued by the Municipal Corporation for carrying on with the business.Considering all the factors that were necessary for consideration toascertain that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises a factualrendering was made which could suffer no intervention in revision.

4. The Civil revision petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN)JUDGE