JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This revision petition, under section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, is directed against the older of Appellate Authority (I), Shimla, dated 4-8-1988, whereby the appeal preferred by the landlord has been accepted and the decision of the Rent Controller (I), Shimla, has been sec aside, 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the tenant from the residential premises—one room, kitchen and bathroom-cum-latrine— located on the ground floor of the building known as Rince Dell’, Upper Kaithu Bazar Shimla. It has been stated that the tenant is in arrears of rent from i-84984 to March, 1985 amounting to Rs. 1,373-75 and that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in question continuously for a period of more than 12 months from the date of the filing of the petition on account of his transfer from Shimla to Dharamshala in the first week of January, 1984 and the premises have since been kept locked and the tenant does not want to keep the premises 3. The claim of the landlord has been seriously contested by the tenant. It has been pleaded, Inter aiia9 that there had not been any intention or failure to pay the rent, As a matter of fact, the landlord had refused to accept the same when tendered and he is not entitled to interest on the arrears of rent. It has been denied that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises as alleged though it has been admitted that the tenant has been transferred from Shimla to Dharamshala The further case of the tenant is that his wife and mother-in-law have been staying in Shimla and occupying the premises in question since the mother-in-law of the tenant was not in good health and was under the treatment of doctors at Shimla. The claim of the landlord that the premises have been locked has been denied and it has also been averred that the tenant himself visits Shimla twice or thrice a month and has been staying in these premises. The landlord has reiterated his stand in the rejoinder and it has been asserted that neither the tenant nor his family members had been residing in the premises though sometimes some unknown persons stay there. 4. The landlord has reiterated his stand in the rejoinder and it has been asserted that neither the tenant nor his family members had been residing in the premises though sometimes some unknown persons stay there. 4. The tenant tendered the arrears of rent with interest and costs on 3-6-1985, thus rendering the ground for eviction for arrears of rent infructuous. The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 3-8-1985 1. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises in question, as alleged ? 2. Relief. 5. The trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, found that the claim of the landlord that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises was not substantiated and proceeded to dismiss the petition on that basis by decision of 18 12-1986, after carefully considering the evidence on record and the contentions raised by the parties. This decision was assailed before the Appellate Authority (I), Shimla, in C. M A. No. 16—Sp 14 of 1987 by the landlord. By decision dated 4-8-1S 88, the Appellate Authority held that the landlord had succeeded in proving the non-occupation of the premises by the tenant since January, 1984 and the claim of the tenant that his wife and mother-in-law had been occupying the premises was not correct. Now, the tenant has questioned the Endings recorded by the Appellate Authority through this revision petition. 6. Counsel for the parties were heard and the case file examined carefully with their assistance. It was contended by Ms. Bandana Lakhanpal that the Appellate Authority has not correctly examined and appreciated the evidence with the result that erroneous conclusions against the tenant have been drawn despite the fact that the Rent Controller had already examined the evidence quite comprehensively before holding that the tenant had not ceased to occupy the premises in question. The learned Counsel further contended that there is clear and cogent evidence on the record which demonstrates in unmistakable terms that the premises had never been locked They were occupied by the wife and mother-in-law of the petitioner besides his casual visits to Shimla. The tenant had been trying to transfer himself from Dharamshala to Shimla and by an order dated 8-6-1988 he was also transferred and stayed in the premises in question. He has no intention to leave the premises. The tenant had been trying to transfer himself from Dharamshala to Shimla and by an order dated 8-6-1988 he was also transferred and stayed in the premises in question. He has no intention to leave the premises. Shri Kuldip Singh defended the impugned decision by submitting that the Appellate Authority has based the decision on the correct appraisal of the evidence on record. I proceed to examine these submissions. 7. It is true that the petitioner had been transferred to Dharamshala but it is also in evidence that he succeeded in coming back to Shimla by an order dated 8-6-1988. Obviously, during this time he stayed in these premises as stated by him. Besides, his version that he had been visiting Shiroia quite often and staying in the premises cannot be disputed. The petitioner has stated that his wife and mother-in-law were living in the premises. His mother-in-law is not in good health and had been availing medical treatment at Shimla. This version cannot be doubted. It is clear from the fact that electricity consumption in the premises right from January, 1984 onwards had been continuous and reasonable pointing out that the premises bad been occupied continuously and the statement of the landlord that "however, sometimes some unknown stay in the premises in question" taken in the rejoinder only has not been substantiated in his statement. Further, they could not consume electricity to the extent pointed out by Sh Javed (RW 4), Clerk in H. P. State Electricity Board (January 1984—190 units, February 1984—75 units, March and April 1984-190 units, June 1984— 40 units, July, August and September 1984— 10 units each, October, 1984—20 units, and November 1984—10 units). 8. Turning to the nature of evidence produced by the landlord, it is not possible to say that he has succeeded in proving the case against the tenant His attempt has been to demonstrate that since the petitioner stood transferred to Dharamshala in January, 1984, the premises had remained unoccupied continuously but he has admitted that the electricity meter in the premises continues to be in the name of the tenant. He also admits I that be did not himself see whether the house-hold articles of the tenant were still lying in the premises in question. He also admits I that be did not himself see whether the house-hold articles of the tenant were still lying in the premises in question. Shri S. D.Bhatt (PW 2) claims to be living in the neighbourhood of the premises and says that the tenant had been transferred to Dharamshala and the premises remained almost closed but could not say whether they remained continuously closed for the last 12 months He also admits that the premises were not visible from his residence and that he would go to his office at 10 a m and return by 7 p.m. and did not notice if the tenant might be visiting the house in question. The Rent Controller has rightly doubted the statement of this witness on account of the fact that in a criminal case filed by him against his tenant Sh. Surinder Singh Dhillon he had asked the tenant to depose falsely which the latter declined. 9.Jia Lal (PW 3) is another witness of the landlord to say that the premises were lying locked but the veracity of the statement given by him including the landlords is rendered thoroughly undependable in view of the statement of the tenant and his witness Javed (RW 4). 10 Further, facts in another eviction petition, subject-matter of Civil j Revision No. 175 of 1989, demonstrate that the landlord has taken the stand of non-occupation by the tenant in the present application while in the other it has been stated that the tenant had sub-letted the premises. The present petition has been filed on 19-3-1985 and his statement was recorded on 26-11-1985 and those of his witnesses also on 26-11-1985 and [ 101-1986 respectively. The petition on the ground of subletting was filed on 30-12-1986 wherein it has been asserted that the tenant had sub-letted the premises to certain persons including Shyam Singh Thakur to whom it was sub-letted since July, 1986 The landlord intends to seek eviction of the tenant on one or the other ground. The Appellate Authority has not correctly appreciated the evidence with the result that erroneous conclusions have been drawn. 11. The result is that there is merit in this Revision Petition and the same is accordingly allowed- The order of Appellate Authority (I), Shimla, is set-aside and that of the Rent Controller (1), Shimla, dated 1842-1986 is confirmed. Revision petition allowed.