In this case study, we will discuss what are the essential elements of the eviction of the tenant, mentioned in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
When the landlord wants to evict the tenant, the first step will be to take direction from the Controller and the tenant has to satisfy various points to satisfy Controller mention under section 13 of the said act. The burden to prove always lies on the tenant that he does not violates any provisions mention the said section.
Also Read- Rent Matter Lawyer & Advocates
Hem Raj vs Manveen Kaur
Facts of the case
Tenant petitioned against the order passed in Rent Appeal No.94 of 2014 decided on October 24, 2017 whereby the orders of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has been set aside and the petitioner evicted on ground of ceasing to occupy the demised premises bearing address SCF No.15, Manimajra UT Chandigarh. When tenant ceases to occupy rented premises for a period of more than four months it furnishes ground to the landlord to seek the eviction of the tenant.
1998, the tenant who had taken the occupation in the first floor of the demised premises of the respondent’s property to carry out the business of consultancy, over the period of time changed the business to liquor business and of property dealing in the premises, though this fact is not of any great importance to the conclusion to be reached in a case under Section 13 (2) (v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 where tenant has ceased to occupy the premises without reasonable cause. The electric connection was given to the tenant on August 28, 1998 and the last payment was made on October 18, 2001 and according to the witness, electricity connection got disconnected in 2002 and the water connection was disconnected on 2005. This tenancy was for a period of three years from May 01, 1998 to April 30, 2001 but continued till the landlady filed a civil suit for ejectment of the tenant, for recovery of rent and for damages in 2003 as a result of Chandigarh Administration notification dated November 07, 2002 exempting buildings from the operation of the Rent Act whose rent was more than 1500/- per month. It was rejected by Court and reverting the landlords to pursue cases of eviction under the rent law.
The rent controller after the trail held that no evidence has come on record to show that the premises were actually locked and thus, dismissed the petition. In addition to that, the rent controller also stated that the pleadings do not show from which year and month the premises are locked.
Also Read- CR -7265 – 2019.pdf – High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Arguments by the landlady
The landlady pleaded that tenant had ceased to occupy the premises since last four months.
Reply by the Tenant
The tenant contended that the act of physical locking of premises is literal interpretation which has no basis in Section 13 (2) (v) and since the place was locked with his keys, he could not be ceased to occupy the premises but the word occupation used in the Act will be occupation in view of the purpose for which the premises is rented out.
Appellate Authority, Chandigarh corrected the literal interpretation and informed occupation does not mean mere possession and can be symbolic, the word occupation used in the Act will be occupation in view of the purpose for which the premises is rented out. There is an observation that in order for rent appeal, the tenant should be able to prove that he is using the premise for the purpose for which he originally taken the rent. Here, the tenant changed his business over the course of time from consultancy business to the business of liquor and property dealer which albeit is without amenities that is electricity or water since a pretty long time. According to tenant, the electricity was cut since 2002 and had submitted application for restoration of electricity 2003, then again in 2005, which the tenant has failed to show it as evidence. The water connection was also cut on December 2005 and arrears of 19,790/- were outstanding in December 2005. The present eviction petition was filed in 2007.
The tenant must have maintenance of account books, bank statements, sale orders, invoices etc. to show his occupation of the premises for the material period prior to filing of the eviction petition, but the tenant have failed to submit any sort of evidence. Tenant has also done violation of the law of Union Territory, Chandigarh where the flat falls which is shop-cum-fat where Shop is for business while flat is for residence and given that the first floor is for residence, the tenant using the first floor for business is against the law. It was not necessary for the respondent to spell out any specific date and her claim since proof for four months is enough to invite the ground of eviction by act of ceasing to occupy the premises. And since there were no electricity as well as water, it is very unlikely that the tenant was conducting any sort of business there. Although the rent deed reveals that there were mutual agreement for the renting of the first floor which is for residential purpose and tenant have used occupation for the consultancy business, it violates the section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the tenant is liable to be evicted. Same thoughts were held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nand Kishore v. Yashpal Singh, (2009) 16 SCC 634. Section 11 of the Act creates a embargo that no person shall convert a residential building into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller. It is not even the case of the tenant that the premises were used for residential purposes. And thus, Appellate Authority is on the view that the Rent Controller did not consider the evidence in the proper prospective and wrongly held that the tenant is in occupation of the demised premises.
Also Read- chandigarh+rent | Indian Case Law – Casemine
Contention put by the Tenant
The tenant cited two cases which are
- Kuldip Chand v. Kishori Lal 2009 (2) RCR (Rent) 91: the tenant pleaded that that mere closure of the shop itself will not be proof of cessation of business. Vacation of tenant can be sought if cessation was without reasonable cause. The court ruled out that there can be possibilities that the tenant was working on seasonal basis and there were other supervening reasons such as illness that necessitated the closure of the premises, however no plea was taken by the tenant to support and therefore, the case is distinguishable on facts.
- Rattan Chand Sharma v. Nikka Ram, 2015 (4) PLR 8 the tenant pleaded that tenant had the option for surrender of the electricity connection and would not have merely allowed it to be disconnected for non-payment of electricity charges, if he did not require the electricity connection. The court held that “the electricity is not seen any longer as a luxury or comfort but it is even seen to be absolute necessity for residential or non-residential purpose. We are not considering the case of a hutment in the village. On the other hand, we are considering the building which is a business premise and a property as falling within the Jalandhar cantonment area. It is inconceivable that any occupied building which is actually put to use could have been put to use without any electricity connection. The appellate court must have called the respondent’s bluff but chose to buy an unconvincing story to allow the appeal with shoddy reasoning”.
Also Read- Chandigarh rent – Indian Kanoon
Contention put by the Respondent
- Karam Nath v. Gurbux Singh Juneja (dead) through his LRs, (2008) 1 RCR (Rent) 319: The Court held that once the initial burden of establishing cessation of occupation is established which is always on the landlord, then the tenant has to prove he ceased to occupy the demised premises due to some reasonable cause.
- Gurbax Singh v. Subedar Sarwan Singh, 1994 (2) RCR (Rent) 351: The burden to prove sufficient cause always falls on tenant.
- Ram Kishan v. Santra Devi and others, 1986 SCC OnLine P&H 62: Division Bench hold that the provisions of the Evidence Act are applicable to the proceedings before the authorities under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The principle would apply to the Punjab Rent Act as well.
Also Read- Eviction Petition against Tenant Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali
Judgement
The court held that the petition is dismissed and the petitioner will hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within a month from the date of availability of this order. In case of default, the respondent may seek police help to recover possession.
For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert RENT Lawyers of Punjab Haryana High Court in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Baltana etc.
More on 99888-17966
