P. K. Palli, J.—The landlord has filed this revision petition against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Appellate Authority setting aside the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Shimla whereby the respondent-tenant was ordered to be evicted from the premises in question. The parties hereinafter in the judgment would be referred to as the landlord’ and the ‘tenant’.

2. The landlord i. e. St. Michaeals Cathedral Catholic Club, Shimla through Us administrator and duly constituted attorney filed the present eviction petition under section 14 (2) (v) of the H. P, Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) For better understanding the provision under which the ejectment is being sought is produced hereunder :— “14 (2). A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied— (v) that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building or rented land for a continuous period of twelve months without reasonable cause ; the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application"

3. In the ejectment petition in para 18 (a), it is stated "that the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises in question for a period of more than 12 months without any reasonable cause and the respondent did not occupy the premises in question since July 1983 to first week of July 1990 and the premises were lying locked for the abovesaid five years without any reasonable cause".

4. In reply by the tenant, it was stated in the preliminary objection that the non-occupation of the premises by the tenant must continue till the date of the filing of the petition. It was further said that the petition has been filed on 29th November, 1990 and the tenant was in actual physical possession of the premises in June 1990 and continues to be in its possession continuously to the knowledge of the landlord, ft was said that the respondent had in fact, gone abroad to meet and stay with her son and had left all her belongings in the premises in question and had appointed a caretaker to look after the premises in her absence, but due to health reason and having undergone surgical operation, she could not come back per medical advice and thus there was sufficient and reasonable cause for her being away from Shimla and that she never ceased to occupy the premises as alleged by the petitioner. It was further stated that in order to put pressure on the respondent to leave the premises, the landlord has stopped the supply of water for which purpose action is being contemplated for illegally depriving her of the amenities. On merits in reply to the contents of para 18 (a) of the ejectment petition, it is stated that the ejectment petition is aimed as to cease the respondent from the premises.

5. In rejoinder filed on 21-7-1992, it was reiterated in para 2 that the respondent is still not in occupation of the premises and the same arc lying locked. In para 3, it was stated that the respondent has set up a false plea on her illness and she had in fact removed all her belongings from the premises in question and some stranger has been allowed to occupy the premises presently and the same has been done without permission and consent of the landlord for which the right is being reserved to take such further suitable legal action.

6. Learned Rent Controller after appreciating the pleadings and the other material placed on record by the parties held that the landlord has succeeded in establishing that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for continuous period of 12 months without any reasonable cause. The evidence placed on record from the side of the tenant was disbelieved and order of ejectment was passed.

7. At this