2004 (3) TMI 739 - SC - Indian Laws

Application seeking eviction of the tenant dismissed by High Court - Held that - In the present case, the landlord has, through his pleadings and by adducing evidence, made out a case of the tenant s ceasing to occupy the tenancy premises and the onus, therefore, had shifted on the tenant either to rebut the case made out by the landlord or to allege and prove any reasonable cause for ceasing to occupy the premises. In our opinion, in the case at hand the landlord has fully discharged his obligation of making out the case of his entitlement to evict the tenant under Section 13 (2)(v) of the Act. The tenant has failed in discharging his onus. The Controller and the Appellate Authority rightly arrived at the finding of the fact which they did. There was no case for interference at the hands of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Controller, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, is restored.

Summary

Issues:
Suit based on landlord-tenant relationship under Section 13(2)(v) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a suit against the respondent seeking eviction based on Section 13(2)(v) of the Act. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority decreed the suit in favor of the landlord. However, the High Court, in a revision under Section 15(6) of the Act, dismissed the application for eviction. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court.

Under Section 13(2)(v) of the Act, the Controller can order eviction if the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for four months without reasonable cause. The appellant claimed the respondent had not occupied the shop for four months from February 1990 to June 1991.

The Controller considered substantial evidence, including testimony from the meter reader, postman, and process server, supporting the landlord's claim. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, erred in re-evaluating the evidence. The Supreme Court found misinterpretations in the High Court's analysis, such as misreading the postman's testimony and misinterpreting the process server's statement.

Legally, possession and occupation have distinct meanings. The Act expects tenants to occupy the premises they rent out. If a tenant ceases to occupy the property, it can be grounds for eviction. The burden of proof lies with the landlord, but once evidence shows non-occupation, the tenant must provide a reasonable cause for not occupying the premises.

In this case, the landlord successfully proved the tenant's non-occupation, shifting the burden to the tenant to provide a reasonable cause. As the tenant failed to do so, the Controller and Appellate Authority's findings were upheld by the Supreme Court. The High Court's decision was set aside, and the landlord was granted possession of the premises by a specified date.