Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. Ejectment petition filed by the respondent herein against the present petitioner was accepted by the Court of learned Rent Controller vide order dated 6.2.2002 and ejectment was ordered on the ground that the shop in dispute remained closed for a period of more than four months and also it was required by the landlord for his bona fide necessity. The appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 15.3.2005. Hence this Revision Petition. 2. Submits that the learned Courts below have failed to notice that electricity was being consumed in the shop in dispute. If the shop had remained closed then the electricity could not have been consumed. 3. Further submits that even the report of Local Commissioner reveals that the shop was opened by the son of the petitioner when the Local Commissioner went there. 4. Further submits that the neighbours have also deposed that the shop was never closed always. It was closed only when the petitioner was going for business purposes as he is working as a Surveyor. Further submits that even the findings of legal necessity have been wrongly recorded by the Courts below as the petitioner owns many more shops in Bhatinda town and he does not require the shop in dispute for his personal necessity. Hence, it was prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 5. Reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported as Mukhtiar Singh v. Atma Singh Berar, 1999(2) Civil & Rent Judicial Reports 274; Amar Nath v. Guru Ramdass Textile Mills, 2004(2) Civil & Rent Judicial Reports 144 and Joginder Singh Sawhney v. Harbans Lal, 2003(2) Rent Law Reporter 8. 6. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-caveator was that findings have been recorded by the Courts below after perusing the entire evidence on the file. Reference was made to the Chart of electricity consumption of electric connection which was installed in the demised premises. As per meter Chart of the Punjab State Electricity Board Department, the shop was found locked whenever the meter reader reached there and the meter reading remained static and the shop was again found locked by the meter reader. Reference was made to the Chart of electricity consumption of electric connection which was installed in the demised premises. As per meter Chart of the Punjab State Electricity Board Department, the shop was found locked whenever the meter reader reached there and the meter reading remained static and the shop was again found locked by the meter reader. Reference was made to para No. 13 of the judgment of learned Lower Appellate Court where after perusing its evidence the learned Lower Appellate Court had concluded that the record produced by the Punjab State Electricity Board is consistent for the last two relevant years. Every time, the Meter Reader visited the shop and found the same locked for the period from 1.4.1996 till March, 1997 and March, 1997 till March 1998. 7. Further submits that though the petitioner has a fraction of share in other shops in dispute had fallen to his share and, therefore, personal necessity has been clearly proved which has been upheld by the Courts below. 8. After considering rival submissions and after going through the judgments recorded by the learned Courts below, I find that there are concurrent findings of facts regarding shop being closed for a continuous period of more, than four months which makes a ground for ejectment and also that the petitioner requires the same for bonafide necessity. No ground to interfere is made out.