Now if coming to the case in hand, learned Appellate Authority has formed an opinion on the basis of evidence available on record that the consumption of electricity for the period May, 2003 till December, 2003 was nil, whereas, till February, 2004, 40 units. Also that during the period from April, 2004 to February, 2006, again the consumption of electricity in the demised premises was nil. After taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Gurbachan Singh V. Ravinder Nath Bhalla and others Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 177 and in Joginder Nath Sood V. Jagat Ram Sood MANU/HP/0015/1990 : 1989(1) Sim.L.C. 179 has held that the nil consumption of electricity during the period April, 2004 to February, 2006 i.e. preceding the institution of Rent Petition, which was instituted on 23.12.2005 extends a ground in favour of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of ceased to occupy. In order to meet out the claim of the petitioner-tenant that he had been visiting the demised premises occasionally, learned Appellate Authority, while taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Joginder Nath Sood V. Jagat Ram Sood MANU/HP/0015/1990 : 1989(1) Sim.L.C. 179 and in Sohan Lal Khanna V. Amar Singh MANU/HP/0185/2000 : 2000(2) Latest HLJ 1008, has held that occasional and casual visits of the tenant would not clothe him with the status of in occupation of the demised premises so as to frustrate the right of the landlord to seek his eviction on the ground of ceased to occupy.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 42 of 2009
Decided On: 04.05.2017
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Dinesh Chand
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
Citation: AIR 2017(NOC) 920.
