G.R Majithia, J.:— This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 511 and 512 of 1985 since common questions of law and facts arise for determination therein.

2. The facts:—

3. Respondent/landlord filed Rent Applications Nos. 7 and 8 of 1981. Rent applications were consolidated and evidence was recorded in Rent Application No. 7. Sat Parkash, petitioner No. 1 (original tenant) toot on rent one shop forming part of property unit N.B-IV-1705 (old)/8-IV 1383 (new) at Rs. 70/- per month payable in advance for a period of three months with effect from May 14, 1970. He executed a rent note in favour of the respondent/landlord. The tenant did not vacate the demised premises after the expiry of contractual period and became statutory tenant. House Tax was levied by Municipal Committee, Ludhiana at the rate of 15% and the tenant was liable to pay the same the neither paid the rent nor House-tax with effect from December 13, 1978. He ceased to occupy the demised premises since June, 1978 Premises remained closed for about four months continuously without any sufficient cause. A registered notice was served on the tenant on May 3, 1979 that he had, without the written consent of the landlord, by his act and conduct materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by breaking open the intervening wall as the adjoining shop was also on tenancy with him. The removal of intervening wall had weakened the structure and had spoiled the shape and outlook of two shops. The tenant had constructed Parchhati by making holes in the walls and had also closed the ventilators resulting in diminishing of light and air to the shop. The tenant had sublet the premises to Anil Kumar, respondent No. 2 (in the rent application) at a higher rent Thus, both of them were liable to ejectment.

4. Second ejectment application (R.A No. 8 of 1981) was filed with regard to the adjoining shop almost on identical grounds except that of material alteration. In that application, it was stated that the tenant had lowered the level of the shop to the extent of one foot to 1]A feet and had damaged it and that he had also removed the wooden planks of the main door and misappropriated the same and that he had fixed shutters instead of wooden planks by making holes and by spoiling walls of the demised premises.

5. The respondents, namely, the tenant and the alleged sub tenant, contested the applications. They denied the allegations made in the applications and pleaded that the shops always remained open and business in the name of Balson Traders was being carried on in the demised premises. It was denied that Sat Parkash, petitioner/respondent No. 1, had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises and that he had sublet the premises to petitioner/respondent No. 2. It was pleaded that the business of Balson. Traders was being run in shop in partnership and the partners were the original tenant and Anil Kumar. Partnership deed dated April 3, 1980 was executed. It was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:—

1. Whether petitioner is entitled to House-tax. If so, to what extent?

2. Whether there had been valid tender of rent? OPR

3. Whether respondent No. 1 has materially impaired the value and utility?

4. Whether respodent No. 1 has sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 without the consent of the petitioner? OPP

5. Whether respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the premises far more than four months and liable to ejectment? OPP

6. Relief.

7. Under issues Nos. 1 and 2, the Rent Controller found that the tenant was liable to pay House-tax with effect from May, 3, 1979 and that the arrears of rent along with House-tax were tendered on the first date of hearing and a valid tender was made in both the ejectment applications; issue No. 3 was answered against the landlord and it was held that the tenants were not liable to eviction on the ground of having committed any act so as to materially impair the value and utility of the demised premises; issue No. 4 was answered against the landlord and it was held that Sat Parkash, the original tenant, had taken Anil Kumar (respondent No. 2) the alleged sub-tenant, as partner in the partnership firm and that if a tenant takes a partner in the business, that will not amount to subletting: issue No. 5 was answered in favour of the landlord and the eviction was ordered only on that limited ground.

8. The tenants assailed the order of the Rent Controller to the extent to which it had found that the tenants had ceased to occupy the demises without reasonable cause for a continuous period of four months in appeal before the Appeallate Authority, the landlord felt satisfied with the order of the Rent Controller and did not assail it in so far it had decided other issues against him.

9. The limited question which arises for determination is whether the landlord has been able to establish that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. In Rent Application No. 7 of 1981 the plea of the landlord reads thus:—

“3. That the respondents are liable to ejectment from the said demised shop for the following grounds:—

(a) xxxxxxxx

(b) xxxxxxxx

(c) That the respondent No. 1 ceased to occupy the demised shop since June 1978 till now i.e for over four months continuously without sufficient cause and the shop remained locked and closed for more than four months and in the mean while a notice dated 3-5-1979 in this respect asking the respondent No. 1 to vacate the shop was served on respondent No. 1 but with no effect and he having ceased to occupy the demised shop for over four months without sufficient cause, is liable to ejectment.”

10. The corresponding reply by the tenant in the written statement reads thus:—

“3(c) Para No. 3(c) is denined. It is absolutely incorrect that the respondent No. 1 ceased to occupy the shop since June 1978. It is also incorrect that the shop is remaining closed and locked. The whole plea is absolutely false. The business of Balson Traders is being run in the shop to the knowledge of the petitioner. Even the address shown by the petitioner in the ejectment petition proves this fact. The plea taken is absolutely false.”

11. The only evidence produced by the landlord in support of this plea apart from his own statement, is that of Gurcharan Singh, Meter Reader, Punjab State Electricity Board, Dressi Road Sub-Division, Ludhiana, (A.W 1), who deposed on the basis of the record kept in the Electricity Department that consumption of electricity in the demised shop after December, 1978 had decreased and that on February 21, 1979 when the Mater Reader had gone for the purpose of reading the meter, the premises were found locked. On April 23, 1979, the premises were also found locked. In the subsequent months i.e August, 1979, October 24, 1979, December 1979, February 1980 and April 1980, the consumption of electricity was reported to be nil. The meter reading was done by some other Meter Reader.

12. The landlord in the eviction application No. 7 of 1981 pleaded that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised shop since June, 1978 till now meaning thereby till the filing of the eviction application on January 24, 1981. The Appellate Authority found that the demised premises remained closed from August 21, 1979 till April 21, 1980. Since the demised premises had remained closed for a period of four months, the tenant was liable to eviction under clause (v) of sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act).

13. The conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Authority are neither sustainable at law nor on facts. Clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act reads as under:—

“chat where the building is situated in a place other than a hill station, tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause.”

14. The expression “ceased” is not defined in the Act. In the Law Lexicon by Justice T.P Mukherjee, the word “ceased” means to discontinue or put an end to”. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary by John S. James, the term “cease” is stated to apply to the case where the entire thing has ceased to be, Its only import is that the tenancy has been put to an end once for all. The Legislature in its wisdom has allowed the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground that the latter had ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of four months without reasonable cause. The landlord has to prove that the tenant by his conduct has brought the tenancy to an end with that intention had discontinued the occupation of the demised premises.

15. In the instant case the landlord has failed to prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of four months without reasonable cause. The Meter Reader in his statement as A.W 1 stated thus:—

“This meter is in the name of Shiv Lal. I do not know the Bazar in which it is installed. According to the metre record, premises were locked in the month of June, 1978 when the Meter Reader reached. Next reading is in August 1978. On that day also, the premises were found locked. Then the Meter Reader went on October, 1978 and took reading which was 2308 and consumption was 41 units. Then the Meter Reader went in December 1978. This time the reading was 2335. The consumption shown is 27 units. In February 1979 i.e 21-2-1979, premises were found locked. On 23-4-1979 the premises were also found locked. On 20-2-1979 the reading is 2340, the consumption is 5 units. On 21-8-1979, the reading is 2340 as before and consumption nil. On 24-10-1979 the reading was 2340 and the consumption is nil. On 21-12-1979, the reading was 2340 and consumption nil. On 21-2-1980 the reading was 2340 and consumption nil. On 21-4-1980 the reading was 2340 and consumption is nil, (objected to). I indentify the signatures of Shri Charan Singh, Meter Reader. He works with me and I have been seeing him writing and signing and I can identify his signatures. The meter reading record from which I have given the statement bears the signatures of Charan Singh. Meter Reader. The premises shown in the record is opposite to Nasbam Hosiery.”

16. The evidence of this witness does not even remotely satisfy the requirement laid down by the statute. Merely because there was no electricity consumption in a particular month or months or when the Meter Reader had gone for meter reading, the shop was lying closed will not lead to an inference, much less proof, that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises without sufficient cause. Moreover, the landlord came with a positive plea that since June 1978 till now meaning thereby till the filing of the eviction application on January 21, 1981, the demised premises were not occupied by the tenant. The landlord could not substantiate the plea. The Appellate Authority has indirectly disbelieved him on this aspect of the case pleaded by him. He jumped to the conclusion merely on the basis of the statement of Meter Reader that the shop remained closed from August 21, 1979 to April 21, 1980, for more than four months, and on that basis it came to the conclusion that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of four months without sufficient cause. The conclusion is unwarranted. The tenant led positive evidence to prove that he never ceased to occupy the demised premises as alleged by the landlord. He examined Bhag Singh as R.W 2, who is carrying on business in the shop opposite to the demised shop. He categorically stated that the shop never remained closed. R.W 5 Pardeep Kumar, who deals in hosiery business and whose shop is situated at a distance of 50/60 meters from the demised shops deposed that the shops never remained closed. The tenant himself appeared as R.W 1 and denied the allegations made. The Appellate Authority ignored the evidence of R.W 2 only on the ground that the witness stated that the electricity was being consumed in the shop but the Meter Reader had deposed to the contrary. The testimony of R.W 5 Pardeep Kumar was discarded on the ground that he was an interested witness since he knew the tenant for the last 14/15 years. The grounds on which the Appellate Authority has discarded the evidence of these witnesses indicate the perfunctory manner in which it has appreciated the evidence. The Appellate Authority could not give any reason, pointing out the intrinsic weakness in the evidence or that the same was unreliable. Discarding the evidence of a witness on the grounds stated in its judgment by the Appellate Authority leaves an impression that in fact it did not examine the evidence in correct legal perspective. The onus lay heavily on the landlord to prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for a period of four months, which he has miserably failed to do in the instant case.

17. For the reasons stated above, the revision petitions succeed and the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller are set aside but with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the petitions filed by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant are dismissed.

R.M.S

Petition dismissed.