Monday, 5 November 2018

What is reasonable cause for non user of tenanted premises?

 The above circumstances make it clear that the respondent could not operate the Atta Chakki earlier for want of an electric power connection. This was undoubtedly a reasonable cause for not carrying on business in the shop in dispute. In spite of the fact that there is no averments in the application that the respondent ceased to occupy the shop without reasonable cause, the respondent has fully established on the record that he could not operate the Atta Chakki because of a reasonable cause i.e. non-provision of electric power connection to him. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Civil Revision No. 2617 of 1979

Decided On: 25.08.1987

 Jagdish Parshad  Vs.  Madan Lal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dharam Vir Sehgal, J.

Citation: 1988(1) RCR 583


1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 17th September, 1979 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul, under section 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) whereby an appeal of the tenant-respondent against an order of ejectment dated 21st October, j1975 passed by the learned Rent Controller was accepted and the ejectment application of the landlord petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act against the respondent on 16.1.1975 inter alia, on the ground that the respondent had ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for a continuous period of four months. The other grounds raised were that the respondent had failed to pay the arrears of rent after 13.12.1973; that the shop is in dilapidated condition and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation; that the petitioner wanted to reconstruct the same; the respondent has committed such acts which have materially impaired the value and utility of the property; the shop is bonafide required by the petitioner for carrying on his own business. None of these grounds, however, survives for consideration. Even the ground that the respondent had ceased to occupy the shop also failed in appeal. The learned Rent Controller had vide his order dated 21.10.1975 directed ejectment of the respondent from the shop in dispute but on an appeal filed by him the learned Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application of the petitioner vide judgment dated 17th Sept., 1979. This is how the petitioner has filed the present revision petition is this Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record including the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record before the learned Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the ejectment application it had been specifically averred that the respondent had taken the shop on rent for his business but it is lying closed for 2/3 years. The respondent is not carrying on any business there. Instead, he is in Government service at Delhi. This ground was controverted by the respondent by stating in his reply that the shop had been let out to him for setting up a flour grinding machine (Atta Chakki). He had installed the machine but had not been given the electric connection despite the fact that he had applied for the same and that is why it had not been operated. The respondent, however continues to open the shop. Learned counsel submits that the learned Appellate Authority has wrongly taken the view that the petitioner had not specifically alleged that the respondent had ceased to occupy the building without reasonable cause and, therefore, an essential ingredient for claiming ejectment of the respondent on the ground contained in clause (v) of Section 13(2) of the Act having not been pleaded, the ejectment of the respondent on this ground could not be ordered. He contends that the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence brought on the record are sufficient to establish that he respondent had ceased to occupy the shop without reasonable cause. I, however, do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As already noticed above in his reply the respondent specifically stated that he had taken the shop on rent for establishing Atta Chakki. He installed the machinery of Atta Chakki but he could not operate the same as electric connection was not given to him. In his statement in Court as DW. 1 he stated that he applied for the electric connection in the year 1971. He installed the Atta Chakki after the shop was let out to him. Exhibit P.1 is the rent note executed by the respondent. It is dated 11.1.1971. Exhibit D. 1 is a letter addressed by the respondent to Sub Divisional Officer, Operation (Electricity) Mohindergarh pointing out that electric connection was sanctioned for his Atta Chakki in October, 1973 but it was not being released to him. He requested for immediately connecting his flour Mill with electric connection. Exhibit D. 3 is a letter received by the respondent from Sub Divisional Officer (Operation) wherein it is mentioned that an application had been received from Jagdish Parshad petitioner to the effect that the agreement of lease of the shop in favour of the respondent had already come to an end and, therefore, electric connection should not be given to the respondent. The letter required the respondent to have the matter settled with the petitioner. There is subsequent letter dated 11.7.1975 from Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation) that the stay order had been received from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohindergarh restraining release of electric connection to the respondent. It is to be noted that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohindergarh at that time was the Rent Controller under the Act and it was at the instance of the petitioner that such an injunction was issued to the Electricity Board. It is not disputed before me that later on the electric connection was provided to the premises and the respondent is operating Atta Chakki since then and is running his business in the shop.

3. The above circumstances make it clear that the respondent could not operate the Atta Chakki earlier for want of an electric power connection. This was undoubtedly a reasonable cause for not carrying on business in the shop in dispute. In spite of the fact that there is no averments in the application that the respondent ceased to occupy the shop without reasonable cause, the respondent has fully established on the record that he could not operate the Atta Chakki because of a reasonable cause i.e. non-provision of electric power connection to him. I, therefore, find no force in this revision petition which is consequently dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.




Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment