JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant’s revision against whom eviction orders have been passed by both the Courts below that he has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months.
2. Landlord (respondent herein) filed ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act) seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent ; impairment in the value and utility of the shop in dispute ; the shop in question having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as toe same remained closed for a continuous period of four months ; and on the ground of subletting to his brother Dass Ram. Tenant contested the application and in his written statement, denied all the allegations contained in the ejectment petition.
3. Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant only on the ground that he ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than four months The other grounds were found against the landlord. On appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller.
4. I have gone through the pleadings as well as the evidence on record with the help of learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the same, I find that this civil revision deserves to succeed.
5. Rent Controller, while ordering ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months, placed reliance only on the statement of Tejinder Singh (AW-2), an employee of the Electricity Board, who deposed that the electric meter installed in the premises in dispute remained shut from April, 1977 to December, 1977 and then from June, 1978 to February, 1980. Statements of other witnesses produced by the landlord were not believed. Rent Controller also took into consideration the statement of the tenant where he admitted that the electric meter was disconnected for some period. On appeal, Appellate Authority raised inference against the tenant on account of disconnection of the electric supply.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the considered view that an inference of no-occupation of the shop could not be raised simply because no electricity was consumed or the electric meter was disconnected for sometime. Tenant, who is a cobbler, has given his explanation as to how the electric supply was disconnected because he could not pay the electricity bill. It has no where been stated by Tejinder Singh (AW-2) that the shop in dispute was found closed at the time when the Meter Reader had gone to the shop to take the reading. Therefore, evidence of Tejinder Singh, AW-2 is not enough to hold that the tenant did not occupy the premises in dispute without any reasonable cause for more than four months. I am also of the view that non-consumption or disconnection of the electric meter by itself is not enough to conclude that the premises remained unoccupied as alleged by the landlord.
7. The judgment in Dr. Dewan Chand v. Mohinder Singh Arora, (1980) 82 P. L. R. 749, noticed by the Appellate Authority as well as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In Dr. Dewan Chand’s case (supra), in certified copy of the statement of electric charges, not only the shop was shown to be locked for a considerable period but the tenant also failed to produce large number of documents concerning his business for running the shop which he was called upon to produce and in these circumstances, an adverse inference was drawn against the tenant. However, in the present case, no such inference can be drawn against the tenant.
8. As a result thereof, the civil revision is allowed with no order as to costs. Consequently, the ejectment petition stands dismissed.