Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.:- Petitioners(tenants) are in revision under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the findings returned by learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, who vide its order dated 02.02.2013 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent(landlady) Sushma Kumari on the ground of cease to occupy and consequently reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, who had dismissed the ejectment application of the respondent landlady vide order dated 12.08.2011.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlady) had filed an ejectment application against the petitioners(tenants) on various grounds, including the ground of cease to occupy the premises by giving a reasoning that since September 2007 no business is being run by the tenant no.1/petitioner no.1 and, therefore, he has rendered himself liable for ejectment on the ground of non occupation of the premises as mentioned under Section 13 of the Act.

3. Upon notice, petitioners(tenants) denied all the material averments and prayed for the dismissal of the ejectment application.

4. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead evidence and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur dismissed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were reversed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur. Hence the present revision petition.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) has argued that the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur has wrongly allowed the ejectment application of the respondent(landlady) on the ground of ceased to occupy the premises for the last more than 4 months, without considering the fact that it is not proved on record that the petitioners were not occupying the premises for the last four months. It was argued that the learned Appellate Authority has wrongly observed that since in the electricity bills, there is no consumption of electricity reflected from May 2007 to 22.02.2008 i.e. for a period of 10 months, therefore, it is presumed that the petitioners have ceased to occupy the suit premises, as the kind of business that was being run by the petitioners(tenants) did not require any electricity because they were doing the business of dying Chunnies, turban etc. Hence, prayer was made for the dismissal of the ejectment application and consequently, allowing of the present revision.

7. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) and having gone through the case file carefully, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. A perusal of the paper book reveals that in order to prove the ground of cease to occupy the premises, the respondent(landlady) had examined Smt. Resham Kaur as AW-2 who is the official from the electricity department. This witness had stated that the meter has been installed in the name of Vinod Kumar Lalari Di Hatti and as per her record, no electricity was being consumed in that shop and in the month of May 2007 the meter reading of 2766 continued upto 02.02.2008. Furthermore, RW-3 Ashwani Kumar(petitioner no.2) stated that bills regarding electricity consumption of the shop in question are in their possession. However, the said bills have not been proved by them in the court and thus, the best evidence was withheld by the petitioners(tenants) so as to show that electricity was being consumed in the shop in question and its charges were being paid by them. Not only this, AW-2 Resham Kaur, had also stated that in the month of March 2007, it has been recorded in her official register that the meter is locked. It was also stated by this witness that continuance of the reading from March 2007 till 02.02.2008 and mentioning of meter