JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973, (for short ‘the Act’) allowing the appeal of the tenant and dismissing the ejectment petition filed by the landlords. The Rent Controller had passed an order of ejectment against the tenant.
2. Landlords-petitioners purchased the property from Kunj Bihari and Bhim Singh on 29th of June, 1973. After the said purchase, an ejectment application was filed by the petitioners for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground that the tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent w. e. f. 1st of July, 1973, and that the tenant has ceased to occupy the shop since 1976. It was claimed in the said application that previously, the rent was being paid by the tenant at the rate of Rs 4/- per month, but after the purchase the tenant had agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month. On the first date of hearing, the tenant tendered the rate at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month. ]n his written statement, he denied that the rate of rent is Rs. 80/- per month, rather he stated that right from the inception of tenancy, the rent is being paid at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month, and there was no agreement with the landlord to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month as alleged in the ejectment application. He also took up the plea that the disputed property is not a shop, but is being used as a godown right from the beginning of tenancy.
3. The Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment against the tenant after finding that the tenant had agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month, and he having not tendered the rent at the said rate, is liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. The ejectment was also ordered on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than four months The Rent Controller also found that the premises were let out as a shop and not as godown.
4. On an appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on both the counts as mentioned above. The landlords have challenged the said order of the Appellate Authority by way of this revision petition.
5. Sh. H. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. He further contended that the property in dispute is a shop, and the Rent Controller rightly passed an order of ejectment against the tenant on the ground that he ceased to occupy the premises for continuous period of more than four months.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant justified the order of the Appellate Authority.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I find no merit in the revision petition.
8. The Appellate Authority after appreciating the entire evidence on record, came to a firm finding of fact that the rate of rent is Rs. 4/- per month and not Rs. 80/- per month as alleged by the landlords. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show anything from the record so as to persuade me to take a contrary view to the one taken by the Appellate Authority. Adverting to the second ground of tenant having ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than four months, I find that there is no trustworthy evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the premises in dispute was let out as a shop. Neither there is any agreement in writing nor any document to show that the premises in dispute was being used as a shop. The report of the Local Commissioner submitted in another case, is not relevant at all for the decision of the present case. The Local Commissioner who was appointed to inspect the premises in another case, has since died and he was never examined as witness; therefore, the tenant had no opportunity to cross-examine him or to challenge his report. More so, he was appointed as Local Commissioner without notice to the tenant. The two persons from whom, the Local Commissioner made enquiries in order to reach to a conclusion that the premises in dispute are lying closed, were never examined by the landlords. In my view, the Appellate Authority justifiably did not take this report into consideration. Apart from this report, there is no evidence worthy of any credence to prove the allegations of the landlords that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than four months.
9. Consequently, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.