M.R. Verma, J,: —This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the landlord /petitioner (hereafter referred to as the landlord) against the judgment dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Una whereby the order dated 23.1.1995 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord for eviction of the respondent/tenant (hereafter referred to as the tenant) from a shop on Una-Amb Road, Municipal Ward No. 1, Una (hereafter referred to as the tenanted premises) was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Una on the ground of the tenant having ceased to occupy the said premises and for being in arrears of rent has been set aside.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the landlord filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.9.1988 to 31.8.1991, that the tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of more than 12 months before the institution of the petition, that the tenant had changed the nature of the business and the tenanted premises were bonafide required by the landlord for personal use.

3. The petition was resisted by the tenant, who, in his reply, raised the preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable in view of the contradictory pleas taken therein. On merits, all the grounds of eviction, as taken in the petition, were denied and it was claimed that the eviction petition had been filed to harass the tenant, who had demanded a sum of Rs. 500 from the landlord on account of repair of the roof of the tenanted premises in August, 1991.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:

1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so, to what extent? OPP

2. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for a continuous period of more than 12 months without any reasonable excuse? OPP

3. Whether the respondent has changed the nature of the business in the premises in dispute without the consent of the landlord? OPP

4. Whether the premises in dispute are bonafide required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation? OPP

5. Whether the petition is not maintainable on the grounds mentioned in the preliminary objections? OPR

6. Relief.

5. On consideration of the evidence brought on record by the parties, the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 23.6.1995 held Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the landlord whereas Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were decided against the landlord and Issue No. 5 was decided against the tenant and in view of the findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 the eviction petition was allowed.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority Una. By the time the appeal came up for hearing the arrears of rent etc. had been tendered by the tenant, therefore, the order of eviction on the ground of the tenant being in arrears of rent had been rendered in executable. The surviving order of eviction on the ground of the tenant having ceased to occupy the tenanted premises was set aside by the learned Appellate Authority by the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition by the landlord.

7. I had heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records.

8. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the landlord that on appreciation of the material on record, the learned Rent Controller had rightly concluded that the tenant had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for more than 12 months immediately before the institution of the petition. It was further contended that non-use of electricity in the shop during the said period was a relevant and material piece of evidence to substantiate the findings of the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appell