Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.5.2010 of the Appellate Authority (II), Una in Rent Appeal No. 3/2009.

2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlord’ for convenience sake) filed the eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant for convenience sake) on the following grounds: . “That the respondent is in arrears of rent from June, 2002 till date @ Rs. 1065/- per month. 2. That applicant is also entitled for 10% increase after every five years from the date of commencement of tenancy i.e. 1.8.1988, in following manner:- I. 1.8.1993 to 31.7.1988 @ 10% i.e. Rs. 88. Enhancement 88/-=60x80=0048000. II. 1.8.1998 to 31.7.2003 @ 10% i.e. 968/- Enhancement 168x60=10,080/-. III. 1.8.2003 to 28.2.06 @ 10% Rs. 1065/- Enhancement 265x31=Rs. 8215/- with interest @ 9% P.A. on arrears of rent. 3. That the tenant/respondent has ceased to occupy the rented shop for a continuous period of twelve months without reasonable cause i.e. from 1st September, 2004.”

3. The tenant filed detailed reply controverting the averments made in the petition. He has pleaded that the rent was increased to Rs. 880/- per month in the year 1995 on the request of the landlord. He has denied that he was in arrears of rent. According to him, rent was paid upto October, 2005 and the rate of rent was not Rs. 1065/-, as landlord never claimed the enhancement of rent after 1995. He has further averred that he is running the business of selling of cloth in the shop in question under the name and style of Ram Nath and Sons. The marriage of the daughter of the petitioner was solemnized in the month of December, 2005 and the landlord purchased the cloth worth Rs. 7730/- from the shop on 29.11.2005 and 4.12.2005. The landlord promised to adjust the amount towards the rent. The Rent Controller framed the issues on 18.6.2007. The Rent Controller found the tenant in arrears of rent and the landlord was held entitled to enhanced rent, arrears of which came to Rs. 105714/- alongwith rent due till the final realization of amount. The tenant was found liable to be evicted from the premises on the ground that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. This order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 4.7.2009. The tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. It was pleaded before the learned Appellate Authority that as far as the arrears of rent was concerned, the same stood deposited by the tenant as per order dated 4.7.2009. The only point, which was framed by the learned Appellate Authority, was as under: “Whether the respondent/tenant has ceased to occupy the rented premises from 1st Septmber, 2004 onwards i.e. a continuous period of more than 12 months immediately preceding the filing of the petition without any reasonable cause?”

4. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 19.5.2010. Hence, this appeal by the tenant.

5. Mr. Subhash Sharma has strenuously argued that orders passed by both the courts below are not sustainable. He then contended that the learned courts below have returned a wrong finding that the tenant has ceased to occupy the shop without reasonable cause. According to him, the tenant has led ample evidence to prove that he has not ceased to occupy the shop in question.

6. I have heard Mr. Subhash Sharma at length.

7. Section 14 (2) (v) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 reads thus: “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.”

8. The landlord submitted affidavit under order 18 rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and appeared as PW-2. According to him, the shop in dispute was closed/locked by the tenant from 1.9.2004 onwards without any reasonable cause. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the