JUDGMENT P.K.Palli, J. (Oral):- This revision petition has been filed by the landlord. Ejectment of the respondent-tenant was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent subletting and that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than 12 months. The Rent Controller, on appreciation of the pleadings and other material placed on record, found that the tenant is in arrears of rent and also Las ceased to occupy the premises since June, 1987. It was further found that the tenant is in arrears of rent and also has ceased to occupy the premises since June, 1987. It was further found that no case of subletting is made out. In sequence of these findings the petition was allowed on the twin grounds ordering ejectment of the tenant It was further clarified that in case the tenant deposits arrears of rent within one month, he shall not be ejected from the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. 2. Appeal filed by the tenant before the Appellate Authority, stands partly accepted on the ground of arrears of rent. The findings recorded on the other ground stand upset. It was further held that in case the tenant deposits rent within 30 days, he shall not be evicted from the demised premises. 3. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned counsel for the landlord, contends that the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority needs to be set aside as the landlord has clearly made out a case for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than 12 months. 4. Mr. Gupta further contends that the evidence placed on record has been mis- interpreted and mis-construed by the Appellate Authority and the provisions contained in Section 14(2)(v) of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987 have been mis-read. I have been taken through the record by the learned counsel in support of the arguments raised. 5. Mr. Jishtu, learned counsel for the tenant, contends that no case of having ceased to occupy stands made out against the tenant. The two sisters and one brother of the tenant are residing in the premises and he is also visiting Shimla and uses the premises for his stay, though occasionally. 5. Mr. Jishtu, learned counsel for the tenant, contends that no case of having ceased to occupy stands made out against the tenant. The two sisters and one brother of the tenant are residing in the premises and he is also visiting Shimla and uses the premises for his stay, though occasionally. It has been stated by the learned counsel that the tenant has deposited the arrears of rent found due against him and is not liable to ejectment on the grounds being urged by the landlord. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and after carefully going through the impugned judgment and record, I find that this revision deserves to be allowed. 7. In all fairness, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only one ground before me that the tenant has ceased to occupy the suit premises for a continuous period of more than 12 months and the ejectment is being pressed only on this ground. 8. In order to examine this point, the provision is reproduced here under:- "14(2)................................ (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." 9. The language of the status is clear and un-ambiguous. Ail what the landlord is required to plead and prove is that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of 12 months without reasonable cause. 10. The admitted facts as these emerge from the reading of the record are that the tenant was in service in Shimla and was transferred from this place to Jubbal in the month of June, 1987. It is further not disputed that ever since then he is in service there and is residing-there alongwith his family. In this statement examined as RW-1, he has stated that his two un- married sisters and one brother are residing in the premises and he is depositing the electricity and water charges. In cross-examination he admits that he is a resident of Jubbal where he has a permanent house and some land. In this statement examined as RW-1, he has stated that his two un- married sisters and one brother are residing in the premises and he is depositing the electricity and water charges. In cross-examination he admits that he is a resident of Jubbal where he has a permanent house and some land. The premises in question were taken by him on rent in the year 1981 and at that time he was un-married. His first posting was in Nigam Vihar, Shimla from where he was transferred to Jubbal in June, 1987. It has also been said by him that it is not necessary that he will be sent back to Shimla again on transfer. 11. The sister of the tenant Anshubala has appeared as RW-2 and in her statement she admits that the summons in this case were served upon her. In cross-examination she admits to have come to Shimla in the year 1989 and earlier to that she was in employment at Rohru where he was working in Andhra Project. In Shimla she was an employee of Nathpa Jhakri Project and in April, 1991 she has joined job in the Electricity Board. She has also stated that her brother, that is, the respondent keeps on visiting Shimla often. In the written statement filed by the tenant it has been said that there are two unmarried sisters, who were studying in Government College, Shimla and one un-married brother, who was also studying in Government College, Shimla. This written statement was filed on April 20, 1990 and nothing has been said as to what his sister are doing in life after completing their studies. Be that as it may. 12. No where in the written statement it has been said that the sisters and brother were dependent on the tenant and were residing as his family members in the house in dispute. As per statement of the tenant he was himself a bachelor when he took the premises-for rent in the year 1981. As per the statement made by his sister RW-2, she came to Shimla in the year 1989 and prior to this she was in service at Rohru. This would clearly mean that she came to occupy the house in question after her brother, that is, the respondent-tenant who had already shifted to Jubbal in June, 1987. 13. As per the statement made by his sister RW-2, she came to Shimla in the year 1989 and prior to this she was in service at Rohru. This would clearly mean that she came to occupy the house in question after her brother, that is, the respondent-tenant who had already shifted to Jubbal in June, 1987. 13. The question that requires consideration of this Court is whether the brother and sisters of the tenant can be considered to be the members of his family or not. Right of ejectment has been provided to the landlord against the tenant when the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months. 14. Cease to occupy in its ordinary sence means that the tenant who was in possession and occupation and was enjoying the tenanted premises, has ceased to have actual physical control over the said premises. Occupation means to hold possession for the use of the tenant and the word cease, in the given situation, would mean that he has stopped to occupy the premises or the occupation by him has come to an end. 15. Looking at the language of the provision, all what required is the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. The tenant, in the given situation, would, of course, include his family members but shall certainly not include other relations and in the present case the brother and sister of the tenant. Protection, in the given situation, is to the occupation of the tenant and not to any other person either in his independent capacity or on behalf of the tenant The occupation by the brother and sisters by no means can be taken to be occupation of the tenant. The Rent "Controller has taken note of a certified issued by the Gram Panchayat placed on record by the tenant and Kumari Anshubala is said to be living in Gram Panchayat, Rammi. This document on the face of it belies the version set up by the tenant as well as by RWr2. In the written statement mention has been made that the sisters and brother are living in the premises and were studying in the Colleges and strangely enough Anshubala was already in employment at Rohru prior to 1989, when she shifted to Shimla and continued to be in service. 16. In the written statement mention has been made that the sisters and brother are living in the premises and were studying in the Colleges and strangely enough Anshubala was already in employment at Rohru prior to 1989, when she shifted to Shimla and continued to be in service. 16. So far as the occasional visits of the tenant to Shimla and occupying the premises during those visits are concerned, these can in no situation be termed as his occupation of the premises in question. The casual visits by the I tenant can in no way mean confirming the status of occupying the premises , from where his ejectment is being sought on the ground of "ceased to occupy". 17. In view of who has been said above, the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is se: aside and the one passed by the Rent Controller is upheld. The respondent /tenant is ordered to be ejected from the premises in question and a period of three months is granted to him to vacate the premises. 18. In case the tenant files an undertaking in the shape of affidavit alongwith all arrears of rent due till date alongwith statutory interest within two weeks from today that he will peacefully vacate the premises in dispute without intervention of the Court and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord and further that no one residing in the premises shall claim any interest-he is granted a period of one year from today to vacate the premises on his regularly paying to the landlord an amount equal to the rent for use and occupation of the premises till the premises are actually vacated. This amount shall be paid /deposited by the 7th of very calendar month. In case of any two defaults, the tenant would be liable to be ejected forthwith. The revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.