Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, "the Act") challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. It has been concurrently held that the electricity meter does not depict any consumption of energy for the period commencing from 30.3.1994 to 29.1.1998 It is appropriate to mention that the ejectment petition being Rent Petition No. 45 was filed on 10.4.1997. 2. In accordance with Section 13(2)(v) of the Act, if the tenant ceases to occupy a building for a continuous period of four months without a reasonable cause preceding the date of filing the ejectment petition, then, the Rent Controller may pass an order of ejectment of such a tenant. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the electric meter did not show any consumption of power for the period already mentioned and secondly, a Hawker/Rerriwala who used to sell his wares in front of the demised shop has been produced by the tenant-petitioners themselves. On the basis of these two primary facts, both the Courts below have inferred that the shop has not been occupied by the tenant-petitioner for a long period from 30.3.1994 to 29.1.1998 without any reasonable excuse. Therefore, legal requirements specified in Section 13(2)(iv) of the Act stood satisfied. 3. Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that non-consumption of electricity by itself did not furnish a ground of ejectment and to conclude that the tenant-petitioners had ceased to occupy the demised shop in the absence of any supporting evidence. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Faquir Chand (Deceased) through his LRs. V/s. Faquir Singh and Anr., 1993 H.R.R. 35. The learned counsel has also argued that it is improper for the Courts below to infer from the statement made by Joginder Singh, the Hawker-cum-Rerriwala that the shop has remained closed for a long period. 4. Mr. Padam Jain, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents has argued that from the specific pleadings of landlord-respondents it becomes evident that the shop had been lying closed and Chaman Lal, tenant-respondent No. 2 was running his business of Iron Merchant in another shop at Sanauri Gate, Patiala. 4. Mr. Padam Jain, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents has argued that from the specific pleadings of landlord-respondents it becomes evident that the shop had been lying closed and Chaman Lal, tenant-respondent No. 2 was running his business of Iron Merchant in another shop at Sanauri Gate, Patiala. The learned counsel has submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts which would not warrant exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the Act. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have reached the conclusion that there was no consumption of electricity for the period from 30.3.1994 to 29.1.1998. The statement of Joginder Singh also support the aforementioned conclusion which led to the further deductions by the Courts below that the shop must have been kept closed otherwise there was no question of non-consumption of electricity for such a long period or permission to Joginder Singh to stand in front of the shop for selling his wares. It is well settled that once the Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence infer the consequential facts, this Court would not under Section 15(5) of the Act exercise the revisional jurisdiction because necessarily those are also the questions of facts. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. V/s. S. Chokesiri and Company, A.I.R. 1988 S.C.1845 and Ram Dass V/s. Ishwar Chander, 1988 94 PLR 478 (S.C.). 6. The judgment of Faquir Chands case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not require any detailed consideration because is that case reasonable explanation for non consumption of electricity was furnished by the tenant, who was a Cobbler. He had categorically stated that electricity supply was disconnected to the premises resulting into non consumption. Therefore, the aforementioned judgment does not advance the case of the petitioners in any way. 7. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. 8. However, the tenant-petitioners shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord-respondents within three months failing which the landlord-respondents shall be at liberty to execute the order of ejectment.