Section 13(2)(v), East Punjab Rent Act | Juridical Possession Cannot Defeat Eviction for Cessation of Occupation; Onus Shifts to Tenant Once Landlord Establishes Prima Facie Non-Use: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Rupali Mahajan v. M/s Vipan Kumar Ramesh Kumar and Another

Date of Judgment: 20 August 2026

Citation: CR No. 7207 of 2018

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that “possession” and “occupation” are not synonymous for eviction under Section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. A tenant may retain juridical possession but can still be evicted if the premises have ceased to be actually occupied and usefully employed for four continuous months without reasonable cause.

Although the initial burden of proving cessation of occupation lies upon the landlord, the evidentiary burden is not static. Once the landlord establishes foundational facts raising a prima facie inference of prolonged non-use, the onus shifts to the tenant because evidence concerning the actual business conducted from the premises lies particularly within the tenant’s knowledge. The tenant must then produce credible material demonstrating actual occupation or a reasonable cause for non-occupation.

Summary: The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a shop on the ground that it had remained closed since April 2008 and that the tenant had shifted his grocery business elsewhere. The tenant denied the allegation and affirmatively claimed that he continued to operate the business from the demised shop with the assistance of his sons.

The Rent Controller accepted the landlord’s case and ordered eviction under Section 13(2)(v). The Appellate Authority reversed the order, reasoning that the landlord had not produced electricity records, examined a meter reader or neighbouring occupants, obtained a Local Commissioner’s report or produced photographs showing that the shop was closed.

The High Court held that the Appellate Authority had incorrectly treated the entire burden as remaining permanently upon the landlord. Once prolonged closure and shifting of the business were specifically alleged, and the tenant responded by asserting continued commercial activity, the tenant was required to substantiate that positive assertion with evidence within his control.

The tenant admitted that he could not produce electricity bills for the preceding seven or eight years despite claiming that fans and tube lights were being used in the shop. He also failed to produce account books, purchase or sale invoices, or any contemporaneous record demonstrating that a grocery business was being conducted. His supporting witness did not appear for cross-examination. While the absence of electricity bills or account books would not independently establish cessation of occupation, their cumulative and unexplained absence strengthened the landlord’s prima facie case.

The Court clarified that Section 13(2)(v) does not require proof that the tenant intended to abandon or surrender the tenancy. The statutory inquiry is whether the tenant ceased to actually occupy the premises for the prescribed period without reasonable cause.

The Court also rejected the tenant’s ancillary objections. The landlord’s subsequent transfer of the property did not extinguish an already accrued cause of action, and the transferee-landlord was entitled to continue the pending eviction proceedings. The later framing of a specific issue concerning cessation of occupation did not vitiate the proceedings because the controversy was already present in the pleadings, both parties had led evidence on it and no prejudice was demonstrated. Further, the fact that the purchaser was the wife of an advocate who had represented the tenant did not establish fraud, collusion or a sham transaction and had no bearing on whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop.

Decision: The High Court allowed the landlord’s revision petition, set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and restored the Rent Controller’s eviction order under Section 13(2)(v) of the Act.

The tenant was granted two months to hand over peaceful and vacant possession, subject to filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller and clearing the legally payable rent and other charges up to the date of delivery of possession.