JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. The petitioner was a tenant in the demised premises since 11.2.1970. He had been given the premises for a period of six months at the rate of Rs.53/- per month. The respondent sought the eviction of the petitioner on the following grounds:-
1. The shop was leased out to the respondent for carrying on business (Karobar) and the Chobara for residential purposes. However, the respondent has been keeping the demised premises closed for a period of last more than three years continuously without any sufficient cause. This act of the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.
2. As a result of closure of the demised premises, the neighbouring shop-keepers and passers-by have started using the demised premises as an urinal. That place, as a result gives bad smell throughout day and night and the walls have suffered “Kallar”. The respondent has, thus, created nuisance.
3. The respondent was leased out chobara for residential purposes and the shop for carrying on business as Chemist but he instead of using the premises for these purposes, closed the same and has changed the purposes for which the premises were leased out.
2. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller, Narnaul, framed the following issues vide order dated 17.09.1979:-
1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of para 4 of the petition? OPP
2. Whether the petition is a mala fide one and if so, to what effect? OPD
3. Relief.
3. On issue No. 1, it was pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for a period of more than three years before filing the application. It was later on explained that by ceasing to occupy the premises, the respondent had meant to say that the petitioner has closed the premises for a period of three/four years. These allegations of the respondent were denied by the petitioner. It was stated that the shop is being kept open. In support of his case, the respondent produced Ram Chander, U.D.C., H.S.E.B., as RW-3, who on the basis of the record deposed that the meter reading in the month of April, 1978 continued the same upto January, 1979. In February, 1980, the shop was found to be locked, therefore, the meter could not be checked. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Dewan Chand and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh
Arora, 1980(2) All India Rent Control Journal P&H 764, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the meter being stopped, would support the allegations of the landlord regarding non occupation of the shop in question. The petitioner was also unable to produce any bills or the receipts of the amount that may have been paid to the electricity department to show that the meter was running. It was also noticed by the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner refused entry to the Local Commissioner into the demised premises, therefore, the Local Commissioner, was unable to verify the user of the building and the occupation/possession of the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller further took into consideration that the Local Commissioner had been appointed with a direction to visit the shop immediately and observe as to whether the demised premises were closed or not. The Local Commissioner was also asked to find out as to whether the demised premises are being used as urinal and to find out as to whether there is any Kallar on the walls of the demised premises or not. On 4.4.1979, Mr. Des Raj, Advocate, was appointed as Local Commissioner. He submitted his report Ex. PA, in which he has stated that he visited the demised premises on 4.4.1979 itself and found that the doors of the shop and Chobara were locked. He also observed that Chobara was lying closed since long because there was dirt lying there. He also made enquiries from the neighbours, who also told him that the shop used to remain closed and the people used the place as urinal. This report of the Local Commissioner was objected to on the ground that the Local Commissioner exceeded his brief in recording the statements of the neighbours. In my view, the aforesaid objection was rightly rejected by the learned Rent Controller and the report was relied upon correctly.
4. Having discussed the entire issue, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner-tenant is liable to be evicted from the demises premises in view of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
5. The appeal filed by the petitioner met the same fate. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has re-appreciated the whole evidence and has rightly held that the learned Rent Controller has correctly relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner. The Appellate Authority has also rightly drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner that he has failed to produce the material evidence available with him with regard to the use of electricity in the demised premises.
6. I am of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below do not call for any interference. The judgments of the learned Courts below do not suffer from any material irregularity or legal infirmity.
7. In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed. No costs.