9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Ejectment of tenant under Section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Analysis: The judgment involves a revision petition filed by a tenant against an order of ejectment issued by the Appellate Authority under Section 13(2)(v) of the Rent Act. The landlord sought the tenant's ejectment on the grounds that she had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. The tenant, a widow, had moved to Delhi after her husband's death, where her relatives resided, and her children were studying. The evidence indicated that the tenant rarely stayed in the house in question, only visiting occasionally for short periods, and did not sleep there, opting to stay at a friend's house instead. Furthermore, there was no electric consumption in the premises for over a year. The landlord's previous attempt to evict the tenant for subletting had failed due to the alleged subtenant's transfer. The Rent Controller dismissed the landlord's petition, citing lack of continuous occupation by the tenant. The judgment delves into the interpretation of the term "occupation" under the Rent Act. The court analyzed precedents, including the case of Messrs Abdul Rahim and Bros. and Anr. v. R.K. Selvan Bros. and Ors., where the court held that the stoppage of a tenant's business due to prohibition constituted a reasonable cause for non-occupation. However, the court found this case inapplicable to the present scenario. Additionally, the judgment discussed the English case of Langford Property Company, Ltd. v. Athanassoglou and Anr., where the court ruled that having multiple homes did not preclude a tenant from enjoying protection under the Rent Restriction Act. The court emphasized that the mere presence of furniture and willingness to pay rent did not amount to occupation as defined under Section 13(2)(v). Ultimately, the court upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority, ruling that the tenant had effectively ceased to reside in the disputed premises and had relocated to Delhi. The court concurred with the view that occupation necessitated more than just possession and actual usage of the property. Referring to the precedent set by Harnam Singh, J. in Baij Nath v. Badhawa Singh, the court highlighted that occupation entailed active utilization of the property, not merely keeping furniture in the premises. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.
|
