JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—Tenant, Joginder Nath Sood, has a grievance against the judgment of the appellate authority (Rent Act) in Civil Misc. 46-S/14 of 1984 Appeal No.whereby the appeal of the landlord, Jagat 5-S/14 of 1985 Ram Sood, has been allowed and order of eviction, from the demised premises, has been passed with a direction to the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises within a period of one month from the date of the order, thus, giving cause to the tenant to move this Court by way of this petition under section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, praying for the annulment of the impugned judgment and dismissal of the eviction petition initiated by the landlord. 2. The necessary facts of this case are that the tenant is in occupation of accommodation consisting of one room and a kitchen, on the first floor of the building known as Shesh Mahal, Lower Lakkar Bazar, Simla. The landlord moved a petition under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, seeking eviction of the tenant complaining that the tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of 12 months without reasonable cause. The tenant protested the allegation and stated, inter aha, that he never ceased to occupy the premises in dispute or that he has shifted to some building known as Butail Building. Further more, it has been stated that his occupation of the premises in dispute is continuous and the landlord has failed to mention the material particulars in the petition, as are essentially required in accordance with law. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller, proceeded to frame the following issues : "1. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the building for continuous 12 months without reasonable cause, as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the petition lacks, material particulars, as alleged, in para 1 of the preliminary objection ? OPR 3. Whether the respondent is entitled to special costs as alleged in para 2 of the preliminary objection ? 4. Whether the petitioner is barred by his acts, conducts and deeds to file this application ? OPR. 5. Relief." 4. OPP 2. Whether the petition lacks, material particulars, as alleged, in para 1 of the preliminary objection ? OPR 3. Whether the respondent is entitled to special costs as alleged in para 2 of the preliminary objection ? 4. Whether the petitioner is barred by his acts, conducts and deeds to file this application ? OPR. 5. Relief." 4. The contest ended in the dismissal of the eviction petition after the Rent Controller decided issue No 1 against the landlord and since other issues were not material to the ultimate fate of the petition, the decision thereon in favour of the landlord, as done by the Rent Controller, did not make any difference. The decision was assailed by the landlord before the appellate authority which differed with the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No. 1 and held the same as proved against the tenant. The result was that the eviction of the tenant has been ordered. This is bow the matter has come in this Court. 5. Shri Chhabil Dass, who appears for the tenant, has very ably and strenuously assailed the findings of the appellate authority and he contends that the appellate authority has gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in question ; rather, Shri Chhabil Dass points out that the evidence on the record is so clear and conclusive that such a finding cannot, at all, be arrived at. There is gross miscarriage of justice, besides, the palpable error in the decision of this case, Shri Chhabil Dass argues, and appeals for setting-aside the judgment after perusing the evidence on the record of this case. These submissions have been contested by Shri Laxmi Chand Sood, Counsel for the landlord. He contends that the findings of the Rent Controller were quite erroneous and divorced from the evidence on record, so, they were rightly up-set by the appellate authority. Shri Laxmi Chand Sood further submits that the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and evidence on record, therefore, does not call for any interference at the revisional stage. 6. The fundamental question to be examined in this case is whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of 12 months without any reasonable cause. 6. The fundamental question to be examined in this case is whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of 12 months without any reasonable cause. For answering this question, it is necessary to refer to the evidence adduced by the parties during the trial of this case. 7. The landlord has examined himself as PW 1. He states that he did not see the tenant living in the premises continuously for more than 12 months. He has denied the suggestion that the tenant has still kept his luggage in the premises and he lives there with his family members. His other witness Vinod Kumar (PW 2), a Clerk in the H.P. State Electricity Board, states that meter against account No. 41-D is there in the disputed premises. The consumption of electricity from 4-9-1981 to 4-10-1982 was two units. He further states that the reading of the meter upto 4-10-1982 was 1440 and it was the same on 4-9-1981. Bhagwan Swaroop (PW 3) has also supported the landlord. 8. The respondent has not only examined himself but has produced Roshan Lal (RW 2), Parveen Kumar (RW 3) and Jagjit Singh (RW 4). He himself states that the premises in dispute did not remain closed from September 1980 to October 1982. He is carrying on Bakery business at 95 Lower Bazar, Simla. He further states that he uses kerosene lamp since he could not afford charges for electricity consumption. He also states that he was consuming 3/4 bottles of kerosene oil for 3/4 days and the cost of each bottle was Rs. 2.25 paise. He was also using electricity bulb of zero watt for 2/3 hours a day, with the result that he was not getting any electricity bill. Before this period, he used to pay Rs. 6/7 by way of electricity consumption charges. He also admits that during November, 1983, he received electricity bill to the extent of Rs. 6, thus, admitting that he had been consuming electricity regularly after the filing of this petition. He did not disconnect the electricity connection at any time. His income from Grand Nanda Bakery was Rs. 400 per month. 9. Shri Roshan Lal (RW 2), is the brother of the tenant. 6, thus, admitting that he had been consuming electricity regularly after the filing of this petition. He did not disconnect the electricity connection at any time. His income from Grand Nanda Bakery was Rs. 400 per month. 9. Shri Roshan Lal (RW 2), is the brother of the tenant. He states that the luggage of the tenant is lying in the disputed premises and the tenant also lives there and he carries on Bakery business at Lower Bazar, Simla. He further states that the tenant sometimes goes to live in his house in Old Butail Building when he goes to Rajgarh, and whenever he went to the house of the tenant, he found him consuming zero watt bulb. He denies the suggestion that he (witness) lives at Rajgarh and the tenant is living in his accommodation since 1980. 10. Shri Parveen Kumar (RW 3) also states that the premises did not remain closed from September, 1980 to October, 1982 and the luggage of the tenant is lying there. The tenant lives there with his wife. The tenant is carrying on Bakery business in Lower Bazar, Simla, and has no other place for living. The tenant, he states, consumes bulb of low voltage and consumes high voltage bulb very less. Normally he has seen the tenant using lamp or candle for the last about two years. 11. Shri Jagjit Singh (RW 4) is a witness, who was once evicted from the premises in his occupation by the landlord by breaking open the locks. He has also supported the tenant. This is the nature of the evidence that has come on the record of this case. 12. Shri Chhabil Dass, submits that non-consumption of electricity is no proof that the tenant has not been living in the disputed premises. Reference is made to 1982 (2) RCJ 440, Siri Ram Gupta v. Jugal Kishore and others. This decision is not applicable to the present case since no such evidence is available on the record of this case. These premises have electricity meter right from the beginning. The tenant had been consuming electricity and paying consumption bills regularly but during this gap of 12 months, neither any electricity was consumed nor any payment was made towards its consumption since the meter remained static. It changed only when the tenant started consuming electricity after the filing of this petition. These premises have electricity meter right from the beginning. The tenant had been consuming electricity and paying consumption bills regularly but during this gap of 12 months, neither any electricity was consumed nor any payment was made towards its consumption since the meter remained static. It changed only when the tenant started consuming electricity after the filing of this petition. The defence of the tenant that he had been using kerosene lamp or zero watt electricity bulb is rather laughable. The plea of the tenant that he was doing so since he could not afford to spend on electricity is again a factor which goes very much against his assertions qua the occupation of premises also. The cost of kerosene, as calculated by the appellate authority, goes much more than the charges for electricity consumption. This explanation rather strengthens the case of the landlord that the tenant has ceased to occupy these premises during the period of 12 months and there was no reasonable cause for the tenant to do so. The conduct of the tenant and the nature on the evidence adduced by him further indicates that he was living in the accommodation of his brother in old Butail Building since his brother appears to have shifted to Rajgarh. Keeping of luggage does not mean anything if the tenant does not come to visit or stay in the premises in question at any time during this period (See : ILP 1986 HP 176, G.C. Bhatia v. R.L. Seith, but no such thing is available in the present case. 13. Shri Chhabil Dass further submits that the landlord has not specifically mentioned the period during which the tenant ceased to occupy the premises. I am not impressed by this argument. The landlord has, in his petition, in items No. (v) and (ix) stated that the premises were occupied by the tenant who has ceased to occupy the same for the last over 12 months constantly without sufficient cause, having shifted to Old Butail Building, Simla. Thereafter, in the rejoinder, which is part of the pleadings, the period has been specifically stated to be from September 4, 1981 to October 4, 1982. To the same effect, evidence has been led to prove the cessation of the premises by the tenant. Even otherwise, I do not see any prejudice having been caused to the tenant on this account. To the same effect, evidence has been led to prove the cessation of the premises by the tenant. Even otherwise, I do not see any prejudice having been caused to the tenant on this account. He has not been misled in any way on this account. Moreover, non-specification of period is not at all fatal (See : 1981 (1) RLR 125, Harnam Singh v. Satish Kumar, and 1982 (1) RLR 131, Braham Parkash v. Shri Shital Par shad. 14. The perusal of the record reveals that the findings; recorded by the appellate authority, Simla, in this case, are absolutely in accordance with law and evidence on the record. I confirm the same and up-hold the order of eviction passed against the tenant. 15. Accordingly, I see no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Revision petition dismissed.