JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Gurbax Singh petitioner (tenant) challenging the order dated 29-3-78 passed by the District Judge, Simla, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed with costs and the order of the Rent Controller dated 30th July, 1977 ordering his eviction from the disputed premises was upheld. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Kali Dass respondent (landlord) filed an application under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the petitioner from a residential set in house No. 126/1, Ladakhi Mohalla, Simla, on the grounds that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the said premises for a continuous period of 12 months without reasonable cause and also on the ground that the premises in question is in a dilapidated condition and requires repairs. 3. This eviction application was contested by the petitioner and upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:— 1. Whether the notice is valid and legal. If so, its effect ? OPR 2. Whether the written statement is not proper and requires amendment as alleged ? OPA 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to ejectment of the respondent from the premises in dispute on the grounds alleged in the petition ? OPA 4. Relief. 4. The Rent Controller, Simla, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent/landlord and against the petitioner/tenant, and issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent/landlord. On issue No. 3, the Rent Controller gave a finding that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the disputed premises from 5-7-71 to 5-8-72 and as such the petitioner was liable to eviction. On the other ground that the house in question is in a dilapidated condition, the Rent Controller decided the same against the respondent/landlord. In view of the findings under the various issues, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on 30th July, 1977. 5. Shri Gurbax Singh tenant/petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and the appeal was dismissed on 29th March, 1978. 6. In view of the findings under the various issues, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on 30th July, 1977. 5. Shri Gurbax Singh tenant/petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and the appeal was dismissed on 29th March, 1978. 6. In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the Authorities below have not properly appreciated and understood the true meaning of the word occupy as used in section A (2) (v). It was contended by the petitioners counsel that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed premises and had been using the same and that he has never deserted the disputed premises. It was further contended that the evidence produced by the parties has not been correctly appreciated by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon 1948 (Vol. II) of All England Law Reports, page 722, {Langford Property Co., Ltd. v. Athanassoglou and another). 7. The counsel for the landlord respondent contended that there is sufficient evidence on the record to prove that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the disputed premises for a continuous period of 12 months without reasonable cause. It was further contended by him that the two Authorities below have given a concurrent finding of fact, and that this finding should not be interfered with by the High Court. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Shrimati Shakuntala Bawa v. Ram Par shad and others, 1963 PLR 103 ; Kimti Lai v Seth Nanak Chand, 1967 PLR 799 and Amar Singh and another v. Ram Rakha, 1972 PLR 492. 8. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact, that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the disputed premises for a continuous period of 12 months before the filing of the eviction petition. All the evidence which has been produced by the parties has been appreciated by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and the High Court generally does not interfere with these findings of fact, as has been held in 1967, P. L. R. 799, supra. All the evidence which has been produced by the parties has been appreciated by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and the High Court generally does not interfere with these findings of fact, as has been held in 1967, P. L. R. 799, supra. I have, however, considered the evidence again and find that the statements of the witnesses, produced by the landlord, that is S/Shri Behari Lal P. W. 1, Suram Singh P. W. 2, Hiru Ram P. W. 3, Ram Singh P. W. 4 and Kali Dass landlord himself as P. W. 5, clearly establish the fact that the petitioner/tenant had not been using the premises in question for a continuous period of more than 12 month prior to the filing of the eviction application. The statement of Suram Singh who lives in the adjoining premises appears to be truthful one and he has clearly stated that he had never seen the petitioner using the said premises for a period of two years prior to the date of his making the statement, that is, 1-9-73. He also stated that he had always been seeing the premises in dispute in a locked condition and that no person ever stayed in these premises. P. W. 3. Hiru Ram who is a peon in the electricity department of Simla, has stated that the premises were always found by him in a locked condition and that the bills of electricity were being sent by post. P. W. 4 Ram Singh is a clerk in the electricity department. He has clearly stated that only one unit of electricity was consumed in the disputed premises from 25-6-71 to 25-10-71 and another one unit was consumed from 25-10-71 to 25-11-72. The landlord Kali Dass has supported his case in his statement as P. W. 5 and has stated that the premises had been kept in a locked condition for more than 2 to 3 years before the filing of the eviction petition. 9. The petitioner/tenant has tried to rebut this evidence by producing witnesses to prove that he has been working as a truck operator and that he has been residing in the premises in dispute occasionally. 9. The petitioner/tenant has tried to rebut this evidence by producing witnesses to prove that he has been working as a truck operator and that he has been residing in the premises in dispute occasionally. The petitioner/tenant also tried to prove that the consumption of electricity is less due to the fact that the electricity connection was seldom in proper order and that he and his family members had been sleeping at early hours. It has further been brought in evidence that the daughters of the petitioner had been studying in the educational institutions of Simla and were staying in the disputed premises. 10. After considering the evidence of both the parties, I am not inclined to believe the version of the petitioner tenant. It is not believable that a person is staying in the disputed premises and is consuming only two units of electricity in such a lengthy period, specially when his daughters who are taking their education at Simla, were residing in these premises. Even in the written statement filed by the petitioner/tenant he has admitted that his ordinary place of residence is Sundernagar and he visits Simla casually. The petitioner has, however, stated that he or his family members had been residing in the disputed premises for about five months in a year. The version of the petitioner/tenant regarding the fact that he or his family members had been residing in the disputed premises for about five months in a year, is definitely wrong and the other accompanying circumstances as have been revealed from the evidence of the parties clearly proved that the petitioner/tenant had not been using the premises in question for his residence purposes as alleged by him. 11. The counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that his client does not reside in the disputed premises regularly but it was contended by the petitioners counsel that the petitioner had in fact been using the premises and he will be deemed to have occupied the same because his goods are lying in the premises and he or his family members had been visiting Simla and residing in the disputed premises occasionally. The main stress laid by the petitioners counsel was on the word occupy and it was contended by him that occupation9 does not mean a regular residence and he laid great emphasis on the ruling 1948 (Vol. The main stress laid by the petitioners counsel was on the word occupy and it was contended by him that occupation9 does not mean a regular residence and he laid great emphasis on the ruling 1948 (Vol. 2) A. E. R., 712, supra, for interpreting the word occupy. 12. After going through the rulings cited by the parties counsel, 1 find that the ruling cited by the petitioners counsel 1948 (Vol. 2) A. E. R., 712, had been considered and distinguished in 1963, P, L. R. 103, supra. 13. In 1963, P. L. R. 103, supra, it has been held:— "Where for all practical purposes the tenant had ceased to reside in the house in dispute which was situated at Hissar and had gone to reside at Delhi, only visiting Hissar very occasionally for short periods and even then not using the house in the sense of sleeping there : Held, that, the mere presence of the furniture and willingness to pay rent does not constitute occupation within the meaning of section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The word occupation* means occupation in the sense of actual user." 14. Similarly in 1967 P. L. R. 799, this view had been followed again and it was further held that when the electricity department people went to the premises for meter reading or for service of notice of the recovery of the electricity bill, the building was found to be locked. In such circumstances, it was held that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building, In 1972, P. L. R. 492, supra, the above authority of 1963 was again relied upon and it was held that merely putting a lock or presence of some furniture in the building will not amount to occupation of the building. 15. As has already been discussed, in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record that the electricity department persons had been seeing the premises in a locked condition as and when they went for meter reading or for handing over the electricity bills and there is other evidence also to prove that the premises were in locked condition for a continuous period of 12 months prior to the filing of the eviction petition. 16. 16. I fully agree with the interpretation of the word occupy as has been given in 1963, P. L. R. 103 and the subsequent Punjab Rulings of 1967, and 1972 and hold that in this case the landlord respondent has been able to prove that the petitioner/tenant has failed to occupy the disputed premises for a continuous period of 12 months or more ending with the date of the filing of the eviction petition. No other point was urged before me. 17. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.