JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, A C.J.—Smt Durga Devi (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) is the owner of the premises. She initiated eviction proceedings under section 14 of the Himachal! Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Shri M. L Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the premises known as "Suman Vihar", Annandale, Shimla, on three grounds, namely, that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than 12 months without any reasonable cause and he had been allotted Government accommodation and, that he had failed to pay the rent from 1-3-1979 to 28-2-1983, amounting to Rs. 600 alongwith interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and that the condition of the premises had been deteriorated to such an extent that the same had become permanent source of nuisance to the occupiers of the building as the premiss were lying locked for the past more than five years and had developed large number of cracks for want of annual repairs. 2. The claim was contested by the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds that he had retired from Government service and was no longer in occupation of Government accommodation Since he had large family, he had been occupying the premises, therefore, he had not ceased to occupy the same, as alleged. Rent was offered to the landlady several times personally, through money orders and bank drafts, but it was not accepted. It was also denied that the premises had become a source of nuisance on account of continuous locking. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs I0, 000 was spent for carrying out the repairs since the landlady had failed to undertake the same. 3 In the replication, it has been stated that the tenant did not ask her to spend Rs. 10,000 for repairs which was not even otherwise carried out by the tenant. 4 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the respondent has been allotted Government accommodation, if so, its effect ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises for more than 12 months prior to the filing of the petition ? OPP 3- Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so, to what extent ? OPP 4. Whether the respondent has been allotted Government accommodation, if so, its effect ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises for more than 12 months prior to the filing of the petition ? OPP 3- Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so, to what extent ? OPP 4. Whether the condition of the disputed premises has deteriorated and has become a permanent source of nuisance to other occupiers in the said building ? OPP 5. Whether the petition is not in accordance with the rules and lacks material particulars ? OPR 6 Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by her acts and deeds ? OPR 7. Whether the respondent has retired from service, if so, its effect ? OPR 8. Relief. 5 The parties led their evidence and thereafter the Rent Controller (3), Shimla, found that the tenant had been allotted Government accommodation and he had occupied the same This way, be ceased to occupy the disputed premises for more than 12 months prior to the filing of the petition. On the question of arrears of rent, the Rent Controller (3). Shimla, found that the tenant had not paid rent from 1-3-1979 to 28-2-1983 at the rate of Rs. 150 per annum, totalling Rs 600 only but without incurring liability to pay the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as claimed. Finding on issue No. 4 has gone against the landlady while findings on issues Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have gone in her favour. Ultimately, the Rent Controller (3)s Shimla, held that the tenant was liable to be evicted on the grounds that he had been allotted Government accommodation and that he had ceased to occupy the premises for a period of more than S2 months and was also in arrears of rent. A direction to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the order was also given failing which to deliver the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlady within 60 days from trie date of the order for this reason and on other two grounds 6. The tenant took the matter to the appellate Court in CM.A. No. 34-S/!4of 1986/88, 70-S/14 of 1987, 63-S/i4 of 3986 unsuccessfully. The tenant took the matter to the appellate Court in CM.A. No. 34-S/!4of 1986/88, 70-S/14 of 1987, 63-S/i4 of 3986 unsuccessfully. Before the appellate Court, he assailed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller (3), Shimla, being against evidence on record and law applicable in this case concerning issues Nos. 1 and 2 only. After examining the matter quite elaborately and meticulously, the appellate Court repelled all the contentions and confirmed the findings recorded by Rent Controller (3), Shimla The appeal was dismissed on 31-3-1989. 7. Undaunted by two successive failures, the tenant has approached this Court by way of this revision petition. He has challenged the findings recorded by the two Courts below and Shri Bhopinder Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for him, strongly contended for the acceptance of this revision petition on the ground that the two Courts below have not recorded the correct findings keeping in view the evidence available on the case file. In order to sustain this submission, the evidence was read over extensively. Opposing this plea, Shri G D. Verrna, appearing for the landlady, contended that the two Courts below have taken care to deal with the matter quite seriously and the findings have been recorded after scrutinising carefully the evidence adduced by the parties Having recorded the concurrent findings, it is neither desirable nor justifiable on the facts of the case to differ with the view already taken by two Courts below even if assuming that the jurisdiction of this Court while dealing with a petition under the Act is broader than available to it under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I proceed to examine the matter- 8 The first question to be seen is whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months prior to the filing of the petition and whether he had been allotted Government accommodation which he had himself occupied On this question, the parties have Jed evidence Shri Gopal Khanna (PW 2) is an Upper Division Clerk in the Estate Office, shimla He proves that the tenant had been allotted House No. B/4/24 on 25-l-l9fc0 and the tenant had given the occupation report on 29-8-1980. The house was vacated by the tenant on 12-8-1983 (afternoon) on account of retirement on 3G-6-1982. therefore, according to this witness, the tenant had remained in occupation of the allotted accommodation till 1^8-1983. The house was vacated by the tenant on 12-8-1983 (afternoon) on account of retirement on 3G-6-1982. therefore, according to this witness, the tenant had remained in occupation of the allotted accommodation till 1^8-1983. The landlady (PW 1) has stated that the tenant did not stay in the premises in question for a continuous period of four years and the house remained locked Corroborating this evidence, Shri Prem Parkash (PW 3), a Clerk in the H. P. State Electricity Board, has stated that meter No 19934488 was installed in the name of the tenant it was disconnected on 8-1-U80 on the request of the tenant and a new meter was installed on his request on 20-5-1983. He has also stated that the new connection was given after rewiring Shri Ramesh Sood (PW 4) has also said that the tenant did not occupy the premises from August 1978 to July, 1983 and no member of his family lived there during this time. Shri Joginder Kumar Verma (PW 5) lives in adjacent premises since January, 1979. He also states that he did not see the tenant living in the disputed premises till June/July, 1983. 9. In opposition, the tenant had examined himself in addition to some other witnesses. He has stated that the premises did not remain closed from 1979 to 1983. He did not occupy the Government accommodation. Rather, it was occupied by his son and he had to live in both the premises as his family was large However, he has admitted that he did not give in writing to the department about this fact. Sh. Tek Ram (RW 2) and Shri Gurchain Ram (RW 3) have also supported the tenant stating that the premises did not remain closed during the period in dispute. Shri Tek Ram (RW 2) has admitted that he came to know about the tenant in 1974 and he did not know that Government accommodation had been allotted in favour of the tenant in 1977. He was not on visiting terms with the tenant nor he ever visited the premises in dispute. Shri Tek Ram (RW 2) has admitted that he came to know about the tenant in 1974 and he did not know that Government accommodation had been allotted in favour of the tenant in 1977. He was not on visiting terms with the tenant nor he ever visited the premises in dispute. He has also stated that he did not know whether the tenant resided in the Government accommodation from 1977 till August, 1983 Shri Gurchain Ram (RW 3) also denies having any knowledge about the allotment of Government accommodation to the tenant and he says that the tenant was the President of the Ram Mandir Seva Samiti while he was its Secretary. 10. From the narration of material evidence discussed above, it can be held that the landlady has been able to prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises without reasonable cause for a continuous period of 12 months immediately before the filing of this petition and that he had been allotted Government accommodation. Allotment of Government accommodation to the tenant has been proved through Shri Gopal Sharma (PW 2) and the statement of the landlady herself. Besides, Shri Prem Parkash (PW 3) has corroborated the evidence by stating that electricity connection in the premises was disconnected at the instance of the tenant and was also restored after rewiring at his instance The premises remained without electricity from 1980 to 1983, therefore, the case of the tenant that he lived in the premises in question is totally unbelievable, How could he or any member of his family live in the premises without electricity for such a long time, more particularly when it has been admitted by the tenant that the meter was disconnected because of defective wiring. It appears that rewiring was done and connection restored when at a later stage the tenant must have thought of occupying the premises after retirement from Govt. service. 11 No assistance can be usefully drawn from the decisions like JLR 1986 HP 176, G. C. Bhatia v. R. L Seith, and 1981 (1) RLR 232, Lady Doctor Asha Bawa v. Smt. Champa Dhawan and another, since these decisions turn upon their own facts and are not, therefore, relevant in tbe present case. The tenant had been allotted Government accommodation on 25-1-1980. He gave occupation report on 29-8-1980 He vacated it on 12-8-1983 (afternoon) on account of retirement on 30-6-1982. The tenant had been allotted Government accommodation on 25-1-1980. He gave occupation report on 29-8-1980 He vacated it on 12-8-1983 (afternoon) on account of retirement on 30-6-1982. The present petition was filed on 5-7-1983. Thus examined, the findings recorded by the two Courts below, accepting the evidence of the landlady and rejecting that of the tenant, are quite appealing and justifiable. There is no reason 10 differ with the same. 12. Alternatively, the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact on all the material aspects of the case after appreciating the evidence of the parties No interference is called for (See : 1977 (I) RLR 168, J P. Chetrath v. Shamboo Dayal; (1988) 2 SCC 172, Hira Lai Kapur v. Prabhu ; Choudhury (1977) 3 SCC 538, Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and others, (1987) SCC 219, Sushila Devi and others v. Avinash Chandra Jain and others; AIR 1968 Delhi 299, Sant Ram v. Mekhu Lal and Co.; (1987) 3 RLR 665, Gurditta Mall and others v. Gita Devi ; 1V88 (I) RLR 785, M. Gopala Karup v, S A. Abdul Rahim and another ; AIR 1974 SC 1059, Phiroze Bamanji Desaiw. Chandrakant M Patel and others ; AIR 1963 SC 698. Hari Shankar and others v. Rao Girdhari Lai Chudhury ; AIR 1964 SC 461, Poor an Chand v Moti Lal and others ; AV< 1980 SC 1253, M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v Rangaswamy Chettiur; Civil Revision No. 36 of 1983, Smt. Dakhnu v. Hem Raj and others ; decided on 11-7-1989 and Civil Revision No. 79 of 1989, Som Nath Sharma v. Prem Lata and others, decided on August 16, 1989). No other point was argued, 13. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed The tenant is directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises under his occupation to the landlady on or before March 31, 1994 He would, however, pay regularly to the landlady the use and occupation charges at the same rate at which he is paying presently. Arrears, if any, would be cleared on or before 31st March, 1994. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.