JUDGMENT P. K. Palli, J.—The landlord has filed this revision petition against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Appellate Authority setting aside the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Shimla whereby the respondent-tenant was ordered to be evicted from the premises in question. The parties hereinafter in the judgment would be referred to as the landlord’ and the ‘tenant’. 2. The landlord i. e. St. Michaeals Cathedral Catholic Club, Shimla through Us administrator and duly constituted attorney filed the present eviction petition under section 14 (2) (v) of the H. P, Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) For better understanding the provision under which the ejectment is being sought is produced hereunder :— “14 (2). A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied— (v) that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building or rented land for a continuous period of twelve months without reasonable cause ; the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application" 3. In the ejectment petition in para 18 (a), it is stated "that the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises in question for a period of more than 12 months without any reasonable cause and the respondent did not occupy the premises in question since July 1983 to first week of July 1990 and the premises were lying locked for the abovesaid five years without any reasonable cause". 4. In reply by the tenant, it was stated in the preliminary objection that the non-occupation of the premises by the tenant must continue till the date of the filing of the petition. 4. In reply by the tenant, it was stated in the preliminary objection that the non-occupation of the premises by the tenant must continue till the date of the filing of the petition. It was further said that the petition has been filed on 29th November, 1990 and the tenant was in actual physical possession of the premises in June 1990 and continues to be in its possession continuously to the knowledge of the landlord, ft was said that the respondent had in fact, gone abroad to meet and stay with her son and had left all her belongings in the premises in question and had appointed a caretaker to look after the premises in her absence, but due to health reason and having undergone surgical operation, she could not come back per medical advice and thus there was sufficient and reasonable cause for her being away from Shimla and that she never ceased to occupy the premises as alleged by the petitioner. It was further stated that in order to put pressure on the respondent to leave the premises, the landlord has stopped the supply of water for which purpose action is being contemplated for illegally depriving her of the amenities. On merits in reply to the contents of para 18 (a) of the ejectment petition, it is stated that the ejectment petition is aimed as to cease the respondent from the premises. 5. In rejoinder filed on 21-7-1992, it was reiterated in para 2 that the respondent is still not in occupation of the premises and the same arc lying locked. In para 3, it was stated that the respondent has set up a false plea on her illness and she had in fact removed all her belongings from the premises in question and some stranger has been allowed to occupy the premises presently and the same has been done without permission and consent of the landlord for which the right is being reserved to take such further suitable legal action. 6. Learned Rent Controller after appreciating the pleadings and the other material placed on record by the parties held that the landlord has succeeded in establishing that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in dispute for continuous period of 12 months without any reasonable cause. The evidence placed on record from the side of the tenant was disbelieved and order of ejectment was passed. 7. The evidence placed on record from the side of the tenant was disbelieved and order of ejectment was passed. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that the landlord has also taken another ground for ejectment by pleading that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises due to its non-occupation and is liable to be evicted on that ground also. This ground was not proved for want of cogent and convincing evidence and was decided against the landlord. No arguments on this point were addressed in the appeal before the learned Appellate Authority nor before me, therefore, the order of the learned Rent Controller in this respect has not been challenged. 8. On appeal by the tenant, the learned Appellate Authority found that there was admission on the part of PW 1 that the respondent tenant was present in the premises in the month of June 1990 Reliance was placed in this respect on Ex R-l and R-2 and on this basis, It was held that the landlord was not entitled to the relief as it has not been proved that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for 12 months. The appeal was consequently allowed. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside and the ejectment petition was ordered to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord vehemently argues that concededly the tenant was not occupying the premises from 1985 to 1990 i. e for over five years and even if it is assumed that she happened to be present in the premises for a brief period in the month of June 1V90, the same would not be taken as occupying the premises in question as the cause of action has already accrued to the landlord to seek her ejectment from the premises on the ground taken in the petition. Learned Counsel has taken me through the contents of the petition and its corresponding reply by the tenant and coupled with the ground of ejectment as recorded above in the beginning of this judgment, it is sought to be argued that the learned Appellate Authority has gone wrong in reversing the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller and the same is based on misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence on record. To give further weight to the arguments, reliance has been placed on the decisions, Diwan Chand Bhalta v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Bhoil, (1994) 5 SCC 444 ; Jai Chand Jain v Sohan Lai and another, 1977 (2) RLR 404 ; Kimti Lal v. Seth Nanak Chand, PLR 1967 799 ; Gurbax Singh v. Kali Doss, ILR HP 1980 (ix) 176. 10. Mr. Sood has further read out the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the landlord. PW 1 is the administrator of the landlord. He has deposed hat he is administrator since July 1987 and is managing the property. As per record maintained by the landlord, the respondent-tenant was earlier tenant in respect of the premises in question, but has now ceased to occupy the same. This witness came to be appointed as administrator in the year 1987 and on the basis of record maintained earlier, it has been stated that she is not occupying the premises since 1985. He admitted to have received one letter Ex. PW l/B written by the tenant in the month of July 1990 alongwith cheque of Rs. 2,000 in respect of the rent. Reply given by him to this letter is Ex. PW -1/C. In cross-examination, he admits to have written a letter Ex. R-l to the petitioner at her address i. e. premises in question and similar other letter Ex. R-2 was written by him on the same address. It is admitted by him that Rs. 40 per month is the rate of rent and it includes water and other taxes. Rev, Father P. Jakcob was earlier the administrator. This witness has also said that as a counter-blast, the tenant has filed a separate petition for restoration of the water supply in respect of the premises in question. PW2 P. A. Joseph has stated that he was managing the tenanted premises as an administrator and the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises since 1985 and the same is lying closed and there is a lock put on it. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has no knowledge that the petitioner had come to occupy the premises is the year 1990. This is the entire evidence on behalf of the landlord, 11. RW 1 is the statement of one Prakash Singh who claims himself to be the attorney of the tenant and Ex. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has no knowledge that the petitioner had come to occupy the premises is the year 1990. This is the entire evidence on behalf of the landlord, 11. RW 1 is the statement of one Prakash Singh who claims himself to be the attorney of the tenant and Ex. RW I/A is the power of attorney in this respect. He claims himself to be the caretaker of the tenant. This is admitted by him that the tenant had gone to Canada in the year 1985 and came back in the month of June 1990. Motive of filing the ejectment petition is said to be enhancement of rent. He has admitted two letters written by the landlord to the tenant dated 17-6-1990 and 25-6-1990 which are Ex. R-l and R-2 on record. This is the only evidence from the side of the tenant. 12. The correspondence between the parties, reference to which has already been made immediately above, may also be taken note of. Firstly, in point of time Ex, R-l dated 17-6-1990. this letter was written by the administrator of the petitioner to the tenant and therein, it is stated that it has come to his notice that you had come and occupied the flat which has been abandoned by you for five years. It was further stated that the said flat is to be taken back as the tenant has caused heavy loss and damage to the building as it remained locked for more than five years The letter further reads that the tenant had occupied it without informing the landlord and she was restrained from carrying out any repairs in the premises. The second letter is Ex, R-2 dated 25-6-1990 by the landlord to the tenant The contents of Ex, R-l were reiterated and it was clarified that the house stood abandoned by the tenant and that the tenant is in arrears of rent as well as house tax and no repair or water connection would be permitted unless an agreement is made in this respect. The third letter in point of time is PW 1/B dated 27-6-1990 written by the tenant to the landlord wherein it has been stated that the question of entering into fresh agreement does not arise. The rent was not paid as the same was not accepted when offered. However, the amount of Rs. The third letter in point of time is PW 1/B dated 27-6-1990 written by the tenant to the landlord wherein it has been stated that the question of entering into fresh agreement does not arise. The rent was not paid as the same was not accepted when offered. However, the amount of Rs. 2,000 by way of cheque was sent and mention of it is made in the letter. It is further stated that the caretaker was looking after the premises as well as the articles which were in the premises and the question of abandonment does not arise, It is said by her in this letter that she had gone to Canada and then to USA to visit her son and there she fell ill and had to undergo a major operation and after getting herself treated from various other ailments, she was obliged to stay there and now that she has come to occupy the premises and found that the water supply is not being received in the premises and on inquiry, it has been found that the same has been cut off, the landlord was requested to restore it. Ex. PW 1/C is 4th letter in the series dated 14-7-1990. This appears to be in reply to the letter Ex. PW 1/B written by the tenant. In this letter, it was repeated that the tenant had made herself liable to eviction for having ceased to occupy the premises for nearly five years and request was made to handover and deliver the vacant possession of the said premises within 15 days from the receipt of this letter/notice. This is the entire documentary evidence placed on record by the parties. 13. Mr. G. C. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant in reply contends that the ejectment petition is not maintainable as it has not been established on record that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises in question for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. The argument proceeds on the basis that the tenant had come back in the month of June 1990 and occupied the premises and then raised the protest regarding the stoppage of the water supply by the landlord. The arrears of rent were paid by her and accepted by the landlord. The argument proceeds on the basis that the tenant had come back in the month of June 1990 and occupied the premises and then raised the protest regarding the stoppage of the water supply by the landlord. The arrears of rent were paid by her and accepted by the landlord. The caretaker has been looking after the premises in the absence of the tenant and it is not the requirement of law that the tenant should herself keep on occupying the premises and the occupation by the care taker would amount to an occupation by the tenant herself. Learned Counsel besides pointing out the discrepancies accruing in the statement of the witnesses examined from the side of the landlord further heavily relies on the observations made in M/s. Babu Ram Gopal and others v. Mathura Dass, AIR 1990 SC 879 ; Bharat Singh Rathaur v. rt. N. Sharma, RLR 1993 (1) 157 ; Ajit Singh v. Bhupinder Singh Khosla, RLR 1992 (2) 130 ; M/s. Ram Asra Hari Chand v Tara Chand and another, Sim LC 1983, 178 ; Buta Ram v. Balwant Singh, RCR 1987 (2) 461 ; Banarsi Dass v. Surinder Kumar. RCR 1975, 567 ; G. C Bhatia v. R. L. Seth, Sim LC 1986, 168 ; Maghi Ram v, Arya Samaj Lower Bazar, Shimla, Sim LC 1992 (2) 393 ; Dev Kumar {died) through LRs. v. Swaran Lata (Smt.) and others, (1996) 1 SCC 25 ; Lachhaman Dass v Santosh Singh, (1995)4 SCC 201 ; Shiv Lal v. Sat Prakash and another, 1993 Suppl (2) SCC 345 ; Babu Singh Chauhan v. Smt. Raj Kumari Jain and others, 1982 (2) All RCJ 200. 14. Mr. G. C. Gupta forcefully further contends that nothing has been said in the petition for ejectment that the tenant had come to stay only for a few days and has left back with the intention never to come back. The witness examined as PW 1 has not stated that he himself verified the fact that the tenant was not residing in the premises. It is also argued that no independent witness from the locality has been examined for the plea that the tenant was not residing in the premises. 15. Mr. The witness examined as PW 1 has not stated that he himself verified the fact that the tenant was not residing in the premises. It is also argued that no independent witness from the locality has been examined for the plea that the tenant was not residing in the premises. 15. Mr. Sood in rejoinder submits that on a reading of paras 2 and 3 of the rejoinder, it is clearly made out that the tenant was not residing in the premises and the water supply was never cut by the landlord. It is argued that the occupation of caretaker would not amount to an occupation of the tenant, 16. In the judgment reported in (1994) 5 SCC 444, their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court had the occasion to examine the provisions of section 14 (3) (a) (iv) of the Act where the ejectment of the tenant was being sought on his acquiring a residential building which was reasonably sufficient for the requirement. He was ordered to be ejected and it was laid down that the tenant could not resist the grant of such application on the ground having lost the allotted residence by surrender made either before or after the filing of such application. On analysis, it was found that the right of the landlord to obtain possession of the residential building when the tenant gets separate residence as indicated in the provisions, cannot be permitted to be defeated by tenant parting with the possession of such residence before or after an application is made by the landlord under that provision. 17. In the judgment contained in ILR 1980 (I) HP 176, the word occupation’ has been explained. It has been held that mere presence of the furniture and willingness to pay the rent does not constitute occupation and the word occupation’ means occupation in the sense of actual physical user. 18. Lot of case law has been cited from both the sides in respect of the scope of the revision petition and appreciation of evidence by this Court. There is no quarrel with the settled principles of law in this res-pest and there is no need to burden this judgment by the case law so cited. 19. 18. Lot of case law has been cited from both the sides in respect of the scope of the revision petition and appreciation of evidence by this Court. There is no quarrel with the settled principles of law in this res-pest and there is no need to burden this judgment by the case law so cited. 19. In 1977 (2) RLR 404, the ejectment of the tenant was ordered on the ground that the tenant has himself failed to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause notwithstanding that his family members may have occupying the same during the relevant period. It was section 13 (2) (v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 that was being examined in this case. 20. In (1993) Suppl (2) SCC 345, the ejectment of the tenant was ordered where it was found that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. In this case also, the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act were being examined by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court. 21. In the judgment reported in AIR 1990 SC 879, lot of stress has been put by Mr. Gupta on para 8 of the judgment wherein observations are made that non-occupation of the premises by a tenant must continue till the date of the filing of the application for eviction. 22. In the case reported in 1993 (1) RLR 156, the same provision cease to occupy were being examined. This was a case of transfer from Shimla to Dharamshala and the premises remained under occupation of the wife and mother-in law and it was found that the tenant was also visiting the premises often. On evidence, it was found that there was no evidence to show that the premises had remained closed for the last 12 months. It was on these facts that the ejectment of the tenant was declined. 23. On evidence, it was found that there was no evidence to show that the premises had remained closed for the last 12 months. It was on these facts that the ejectment of the tenant was declined. 23. In the judgment reported as 1992 (2) RLR 130, almost identical provisions contained in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was being examined and it was observed that it is for the landlord to allege and prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises upto the date of filing of the ejectment petition, judgment reported in AIR 1990 SC 879, was followed in 1983 (VII) Sim LC 178, and the same provisions were examined and the expression cease to occupy the premises for a continuous period of over 12 months were explained. 24. In RCR 1987 (2) 461, the same expression cease to occupy the building was explained by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court. In that case, it was held that the tenant did not cease to occupy if he could show that the premises were occupied by others for and on his behalf. 25. It is in the light of the pleadings, evidence placed on record and the case law referred to above that the present case has to be examined. 26. Concededly, the tenant remained away to Canada and America for a period of more than five years i. e. from 1985 to 1990. This fact has neither been disputed nor controverted by the tenant. The case put by the tenant is that her stay abroad was on account of ill health and operation conducted there. There is not a single piece of evidence on record to prove this assertion. No medical record or any other details of the ailments, operation and treatment have been brought on the scene. Conspicuously, the tenant has not cared to examine herself in Court. No explanation has come from the side of the tenant as to what were the circumstances under which she could not attend the Court and depose the true and correct facts which were purely in her personal knowledge. The only witness examined on her behalf is the attorney who does not advance her case any further. It has also not come on record that the tenant had occupied the premises in June 1990 with the intention to stay in the premises. The only witness examined on her behalf is the attorney who does not advance her case any further. It has also not come on record that the tenant had occupied the premises in June 1990 with the intention to stay in the premises. The attorney while appearing in the witness box has stated that the tenant stayed for sometime and left because of the disconnection of the water supply. 27. Learned Counsel has tried to explain that she is in bad state of health and she was unable to attend the Court. I am afraid, I cannot scribe to such a view as there is nothing on record to show that she was in bad shape of health and was totally incapable to attend the Court, In that situation, efforts could be made to examine her on commission. Admittedly, the reply to the ejectment petition has been signed by the attorney and not by the tenant. It is in evidence in the shape of correspondence between the parties that the landlord raised a protest when the tenant came to occupy the premises without any intimation to the landlord in the month of June 1990. There is not even a remote suggestion by the attorney Prakash Singh that the tenant has been occupying the premises in question after her arrival from June 1990 onwards. The statement of this witness was recorded on 28ih December, 1993, No question to this effect was put to the witness i. e. administrator of the petitioner that the tenant was now in occupation of the premises in question. 28. interestingly, the written statement has been signed by one Mr. O. P. Kochhar as general attorney of the tenant. Strangely enough, this attorney has not appeared in Court and RW 1 Prakash Singh is another attorney having been appointed by the tenant and the power of attorney in his favour is Ex. RW I/A. 29. There is no power of attorney in favour of Mr. O. P. Kochhar who signed the reply on behalf of the tenant as her attorney. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the tenant has not stepped into the witness box to substantiate her pleas taken in the reply and as noticed earlier, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the attorney appearing for the tenant as RW 1. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the tenant has not stepped into the witness box to substantiate her pleas taken in the reply and as noticed earlier, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the attorney appearing for the tenant as RW 1. The learned first appellate Court in this situation has gone wrong in allowing the appeal of the tenant and setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller, 30. So far as the proposition of law as stands settled by the Honble Supreme Court and has been followed thereafter in several ether decisions is that cease to occupy the building has to continue till the filing of the ejectment petition. The question thus arises whether in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the tenant can be said to have occupied the premises in question before the ejectment petition was filed or not. 31. Admittedly, the tenant came and also occupied the premises in the month of June 1990. This is again an admitted position by the attorney that she left the premises on account of stoppage of the water supply. Even assuming that she came and occupied the premises for some days in the month of June, would it amount to occupation by the tenant or not The whole idea and the intent of the legislature in making this provision appears to be that in case, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building or does not intend to remain in its occupation, the same should be made available to someone else as there is paucity of building accommodation in the country. Even assuming that some luggage’s or other household material were lying in the premises, the same in my view would not constitute occupation by the tenant particularly when from the facts and circumstances, it can be gathered that the tenant in the present case does not intend to remain in occupation of the tenanted premises. The answer would be the same when the caretaker is said to be occupying the premises on behalf of the tenant. It was more necessary for the tenant to have come and appear in Court to depose that there was a caretaker and he had been authorised and deputed to stay in the premises on her behalf. The answer would be the same when the caretaker is said to be occupying the premises on behalf of the tenant. It was more necessary for the tenant to have come and appear in Court to depose that there was a caretaker and he had been authorised and deputed to stay in the premises on her behalf. The fact that the caretaker has remained in occupation of the premises in question on behalf of the tenant does not stand corroborated by any other evidence except his bald statement. In the absence of any other material on record, it cannot be held that the caretaker has been occupying and looking after the premises in question in the absence of the tenant on her behalf. 32. There is nothing in the statute that the landlord has to establish that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for over 12 months immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. In my view, a casual visit would not clothe the tenant with a status of in occupation of the premises in order to frustrate the intention of the legislature. If such an interpretation is put, then any tenant in order to avoid eviction on that ground would remain away from the premises for 11 months and then come, live for a few days and would walk out again and will come again towards the fag-end of the year to live for a few days again in order to save ejectment. The moment it is established that the tenant has as in the present case ceased to occupy the premises in question for over five years, the cause of action for seeking her ejectment accrued to the landlord under the provisions of the Act and there could be no escape from the consequences flowing therefrom. The occupation of the tenant in the present situation cannot be in any case termed as occupation with the intention to reside in the premises Consequently, such act and conduct cannot be encouraged to frustrate the provisions contained in the Act for seeking eviction of the tenants The provisions contained in section 14 (2) (v) of the H, P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 gives the landlord a right to get possession of the tenanted premises immediately when the tenant ceases to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months. By no stretch of imagination a different meaning can be given or the tenant can be permitted to raise pleas that the landlord had lost the right in case, the tenant happens to re-occupy the tenanted premises after the lapse of the requisite period as given in the statute. The landlord in such situation would not loose his right to seek the ejectment of the tenant. The tenant cannot in the given situation be permitted to defeat a valuable right which has accrued in favour of the landlord. 33. No other point has been urged before me. Resultantly, the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court is set aside. The ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller is upheld and the ejectment petition is allowed with costs throughout. The tenant is, however, granted a period of three months to vacate the premises in question peacefully and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord provided the tenant files an undertaking in the form of affidavit to this Court within two weeks from today alongwith up-to-date arrears of rent with interest at the rate of 12% per annum failing which, the tenant shall stand evicted from the premises forthwith. -