Saturday, 11 August 2018

Whether non user of tenanted premises is inferred if electricity bill is Nil?

On the other hand, there is record of receipts issued to the present petitioners, and in particular the son, which clearly show that after May 1978 there was no electricity consumption by the present petitioners in the suit premises. The receipts are exhibited documents and are proved. The receipts which are produced are the counter-foils and the original receipts have been issued to the present petitioners and the counter-foils are also bearing the signature of the son and they show very clearly that no electricity charges were included except the meter charges of .50 p. per month in the said bills. On the reverse of the said counter-foils, the meter reading is also shown and that specifically mentions that consumption was nil. On the reverse of the said counter-foils there is also signature of the son and, therefore, it cannot be said that what was written on the reverse of the counter-foils was not known to the present petitioners. As a matter of fact, he could not have said so as the rent receipts have in fact been issued to them and if there was any variance in the same, they could have definitely produced the same in the Court as the receipts must be in possession of the petitioners. The said receipts therefore, conclusively establish that there was no electricity consumption in the suit premises from May, 1978 and it cannot be said to be a coincidence that it is only since May, 1978 that the son occupied the newly constructed premises. Putting all this evidence together, it cannot be said that the appellate Court was in error in concluding that the suit premises was proved to be not in use by the mother, i.e. the present petitioner No. 2 and as the said finding is based on evidence on record it cannot be interfered with by this Court.


Writ Petition No. 3037 of 1985

Decided On: 29.10.1990

Shankar Vishnu Vengurlekar Vs. Rajaram Pandurang Deshpande and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
I.G. Shah, J.

Citation: 1992 (1)  Rent Control Reporter 511.
Read full judgment here: Click here
Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment