M.S.Liberhan, J.

1. The only ground that survived for ejectment of the respondent was that he ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for more than the statutory period. This is the only ground which has been pressed in the grounds of revision.

2. The brief facts to determine the controversy in dispute, averred by the petitioners, are that the premises in dispute was rented out to the respondent on February 9, 1974, at the rate of Rs. 15/- per mensem. The ejectment petition was preferred on November 10, 1975, on the ground that the tenant had closed the shop in question and ceased to occupy it continuously for more than the last two years. It was further averred that the respondent-tenant had other buildings under his tenancy and ownership for running his business. The shop in question was lying closed.

3. The facts were refuted. It was averred that the shop was being daily opened and the tenant was doing his business.

4. The Rent Controller found that the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop in dispute for the statutory period and, consequently, ordered his ejectment. However, the lower appellate Court reversed the findings and dismissed the application for ejectment.

5. The