Judgment S.S.Sudhalkar, J. 1. Petitioners are the tenants in the premises of the respondents. A rent petition was filed against the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent, the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, change of user and non-occupation of the premises. The rent petition was dismissed. However, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non-occupation of premises and hence this revision petition has been filed. 2. Regarding non-occupation, the case of the respondents is that the premises were closed for more than four months during the period June, 1977 to December, 1977. Respondents have examined AW1 Milap Chand AW2 Gurbax Singh, AW3 Madan Lal and AW4 Parmeshari Dass. The present petitioners have examined RW1 Suraj Parkash, RW2 Muni Lal, RW3 on Parkash and RW4 Ram Kumar (respondent). 3. Regarding the non-user of premises, the witnesses examined by the respondent-landlord are AW3 Madan Lal, who is a Clerk in the office of PSEB, Pathankot and AW4 Parmeshari Dass. AW3 has deposed regarding the meter reading of the electric meter installed in the shop. According to the witness, the reading of the meter was 57 units up to 31.5.1975. The same was the reading reported on 31.1.1976. On 31.1.1976, when an official went to note the reading, the shop was found closed, in September, 1976, the same meter reading was entered in the record and there was an entry that shop was closed in November, 1976. The reading of the electric meter remained the same upto December, 1976. The said witness has been cross-examined and he has stated that he was no personal knowledge about the fact. However, he has stated that his knowledge is from the record which he has brought. He has also stated in his deposition that in June, 1979 the meter was changed. 4. AW4 has stated that the shop remained closed. However, the petitioners witnesses have stated that shop did not remain closed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the meter reader had no personal knowledge and the landlord is the only witness examined for proving that shop had remained closed. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has cited before me the case of Sohan Lal and Anr. v. Gurbachan Singh, (1989-2) 102 P.L.R. 355. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the meter reader had no personal knowledge and the landlord is the only witness examined for proving that shop had remained closed. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has cited before me the case of Sohan Lal and Anr. v. Gurbachan Singh, (1989-2) 102 P.L.R. 355. It has been held in the said case that non-consumption of electricity by itself is not sufficient to hold that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. In that case the Meter Reader visited the premises from time to time but nowhere stated that shop was closed. It cannot be disputed that non-consumption of electricity by itself is not sufficient to hold that the shop had remained closed. There can be mechanical defect in the Meter or that the position may be that the tenant might not have used the electricity. In the present case, the petitioner Ram Kumar-RW4 has not stated that the meter was out of order. He has stated that they have not kept the disputed shop closed from June, 1977 to December, 1977. This witness has further stated that the respondents wanted to enhance the rent but they did not agree. The shop, according to the respondents, is used for preparing squash. His deposition is that they prepare squash during the day time but not at night. This, he must have stated to show that consumption of electricity was not necessary. However, in the present circumstances, it will be ridiculous to hold that no electricity was consumed during the day time in a shop which is used for preparing squash. In the summer fans and coolers will be necessary and in the winter heaters will be necessary. Moreover, normally tube light are also used in the day time. RW4 does not state specifically that they were not using the electricity at all. 7. With these circumstances and the oral evidence on the side of the respondents, the non-consumption of electricity assumes importance and corroborates the say of the respondent-landlord that the shop was not used, as alleged. In the case of Dr. Dewan Chand and Ors. RW4 does not state specifically that they were not using the electricity at all. 7. With these circumstances and the oral evidence on the side of the respondents, the non-consumption of electricity assumes importance and corroborates the say of the respondent-landlord that the shop was not used, as alleged. In the case of Dr. Dewan Chand and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Arora, (1980) 82 P.L.R. 749, it has been held that where the certified copy of the statement of electric charges for the shop in dispute for long periods is running into several months, the shop was shown to be locked as the words used in the said document were "P.L." meaning thereby that the premises were locked. It was further held therein that this was indeed a circumstance which goes a long way to support the allegation of the landlord regarding the non-occupation of the show as contemplated by the Rent Act. 8. Relying also on the above authority cited by the counsel for the respondents, counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents have not been able to prove that the shop remained closed till the filing of the suit. However, as mentioned earlier, the allegations of the respondent-landlord is that the shop is not in use. When this was the position, it was for the petitioner-tenant to show that the shop was in use at a particular time. The petitioner-tenants Were in possession of the best evidence to show that they were using the shop and had not kept the shop under non use. However, it is clear that the best evidence is not produced. Of course the petitioners have examined RW2 Muni Lal. However, they could have produced a better evidence regarding the use of shop. As stated earlier, they could have (if it was a fact) proved that the electric meter was out of order. They have chosen not to lead any documentary evidence. Therefore, the best evidence in possession of the respondents is not coming forth and, therefore, I do not find any reason to disturb the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioners have kept the shop as non-use, as alleged. 9. Regarding change of user, the respondentss counsel has argued that RW2 has stated in his cross-examination that shop is used for storing and selling wool. 9. Regarding change of user, the respondentss counsel has argued that RW2 has stated in his cross-examination that shop is used for storing and selling wool. The counsel for the petitioners objected to this argument because the respondents have not filed any revision petition against the adverse finding by the Courts below on this point. Counsel for the respondents has cited before me the case of Surinder Kumar Chadha v. Smt. Raj Rani Mehta, (1992-2) P.L.R. 355 in which it has been held that in a revision petition, the respondent not only can support the order but is also entitled to challenge any finding although order may be in his favour. The principle laid down in the said judgment is an accepted principle and the respondent cannot be precluded from raising this plea, RW2 has stated in his cross-examination that defendants (petitioners) sell wool in front of the shop in dispute. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination that it is incorrect that the defendants (petitioners) store and sell the wool at the said shop. Therefore, there is no admission on part of this witness. 10. Therefore, the additional ground as argued by the counsel for the respondents cannot be said to have been established. 11. However, in view of the finding on the ground of non-user, the judgment of the Appellate Authority remains to be upheld. 12. As a result, this revision petition is without merit and is dismissed.