P.K.Palli, J. (Oral):- This revision petition has been filed by the landlord. Ejectment of the respondent-tenant was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent subletting and that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than 12 months. The Rent Controller, on appreciation of the pleadings and other material placed on record, found that the tenant is in arrears of rent and also Las ceased to occupy the premises since June, 1987. It was further found that the tenant is in arrears of rent and also has ceased to occupy the premises since June, 1987. It was further found that no case of subletting is made out. In sequence of these findings the petition was allowed on the twin grounds ordering ejectment of the tenant It was further clarified that in case the tenant deposits arrears of rent within one month, he shall not be ejected from the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.

2. Appeal filed by the tenant before the Appellate Authority, stands partly accepted on the ground of arrears of rent. The findings recorded on the other ground stand upset. It was further held that in case the tenant deposits rent within 30 days, he shall not be evicted from the demised premises.

3. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned counsel for the landlord, contends that the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority needs to be set aside as the landlord has clearly made out a case for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than 12 months.

4. Mr. Gupta further contends that the evidence placed on record has been mis- interpreted and mis-construed by the Appellate Authority and the provisions contained in Section 14(2)(v) of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987 have been mis-read. I have been taken through the record by the learned counsel in support of the arguments raised.

5. Mr. Jishtu, learned counsel for the tenant, contends that no case of having ceased to occupy stands made out against the tenant. The two sisters and one brother of the tenant are residing in the premises and he is also visiting Shimla and uses the premises for his stay, though occasionally. It has been stated by the learned counsel that the tenant has deposited the arrears of rent found due against him and is not liable to ejectment on the grounds being urged by the landlord.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and after carefully going through the impugned judgment and record, I find that this revision deserves to be allowed.

7. In all fairness, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only one ground before me that the tenant has ceased to occupy the suit premises for a continuous period of more than 12 months and the ejectment is being pressed only on this ground.

8. In order to examine this point, the provision is reproduced here under:- "14(2)................................ (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."

9. The language of the status is clear and un-ambiguous. Ail what the landlord is required to plead and prove is that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of 12 months without reasonable cause.

10. The admitted facts as these emerge from the reading of the record are that the tenant was in service in Shimla and was transferred from this place to Jubbal in the month of June, 1987. It is further not disputed that ever since then he is in service there and is residing-there alongwith his family. In this statement examined as RW-1, he has stated that his two un- married sisters and one brother are residing in the premises and he is depositing the electricity and