Civil Revision No.3522 of 1989 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3522 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of decision:21.03.2009
Subhash Chander and others .............Petitioners
Vs.
Sh. Bishan Dass and others ............Respondents
Present: Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
-.-
K.KANNAN, J.
1. The landlord’s petition for eviction on the ground of
cessation of occupation by the tenant from 22.01.1981 till the filing of
the petition namely 04.03.1985 was dismissed by the Rent Controller
but reversed in appeal and the tenant aggrieved by the order of
Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner refers to findings
of the Rent Controller where he has made caustic reference to the
Advocate Commissioner’s report where he has literally collected
evidence from the locality and from adjacent persons to show that the
tenant was not carrying on the business of the shop. According to the
Rent Controller, the warrant of commission directed only inspection
whether the shop was closed or opened and he had actually noticed at
the time of his visit that the property was opened but still found fault
by pointing out that he had gone beyond the warrant of commission by
Civil Revision No.3522 of 1989 (O&M) -2-
referring to other factors and therefore, he held the report to be
unworthy. He made pointed reference to some bills raised for sale of
cloth from the disputed property and also some of the octroi challans
to infer that the defendant must be taken as carrying on the business
and there was no justification to find that the tenant had abandoned
the business.
3. At the revision, I directed the counsel to read the judgment
of the Appellate Authority and to find out how the decision of the
Rent Controller was reversed at the Appellate Court. The Appellate
Authority has made observation of the fact that after the death of the
original tenant Pishori Lal, the property had been closed and the
tenant had ceased to occupy. The Appellate Authority picked up the
trial from the fact that his son Ashok Kumar was associated with his
father during his life time and after the life time of the father, the son
was carrying on business in some other property while each one of his
three sons were carrying on business in cloth in other places. Some of
them within the same town and one in Bombay. The Appellate
Authority also relied on the evidence of PW-2 who spoke to the fact
that the Ashok Kumar was carrying on business in yet another
property away from the disputed property and no business was being
run at the disputed property. He made also references to the
commissioner’s report where he had observed that at the time of his
visit, there was thick layer of dust inside the premises and the ceilings
were filled with cobwebs. There was no stocks in the property except
some old cloth lying here and there. Even just outside the entrance,
there had been huge heaps of sand suggesting that no member of the
Civil Revision No.3522 of 1989 (O&M) -3-
public used the property to gain access into the shop. The Appellate
Authority rejected the finding of the trial Court with reference to the
physical observation made by the commissioner as well as the
evidence placed through several witnesses. I find no reference,
however, to the bills and octroi challans placed for consideration
before the Rent Controller. If the bills had been made to third parties,
it is not seen as to how all the documents have been produced by the
vendor himself. They ought to have been held only in the hands of
purchasers of clothes. These are all sporadic receipts and the bill
books themselves have not been produced. The Rent Controller’s
finding that even electricity connection had not been disconnected and
bills were paid regularly was dissented by the Appellate Authority by
finding that the bills have not been for any high amounts but had been
paid only for the minimum.
4. The finding of the Appellate Court reversing the decision
appears to have been taken on consideration of documentary evidence
placed before him and I find it difficult to take a different view from
how the matter has been dealt with by the Appellate Court. There is
no serious error or illegality in the order passed by the Appellate
Authority. From the given set of evidence if two views are possible
and the Appellate Authority which is the final court of fact has come
to one view, I am afraid, I have no reason to differ from such a view.
5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
March 21, 2009
Pankaj*