Judgment Alok Singh, J. 1. Present revision petition is filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the. Act) assailing the judgment dated 3.3.2006 passed by learned Rent Controller, Tarn Taran and judgment dated 28.2.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority/Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, thereby dismissing the suit for eviction 2. Brief facts of the present case are that revisionist/landlord has sought eviction of the tenant Balbir Singh on three following grounds:- i) the non-payment of rent; ii) building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation; iii) tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted shop; 3. Respondent/tenant contested the eviction petition by way of filing the written statement. However, during the proceedings tenant has expired and all the respondents have been substituted as LRs of the tenant. 4. Learned Rent Controller has observed that tenant is not in arrears of rent; it could not be proved that building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation; landlord could not prove that tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted shop. Learned Rent Controller has dismissed the eviction petition vide order dated 3.3.2006. Revisionist/landlord preferred statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority which was registered as Rent Appeal No.4 of 2006. Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/landlord argued that he is not pressing two grounds taken by him viz. non payment of rent and building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Learned Counsel for the landlord argued that he is seeking eviction on the ground that tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted portion. Learned Counsel for the landlord further argued, while placing reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Varun Gupta v. Shree Sanatan Dharam Sabha reported in 2006(2) HRR 611, that if landlord makes statement that tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted shop and not doing any business in the tenanted shop then as per the dictum of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in the matter of Varun Gupta (supra), it is the tenant who has to produce all the documentary evidence to prove that he is still doing business in the tenanted shop. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant/respondent No. 11 argued that other respondents have not been served, hence, petition can not be heard. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant/respondent No. 11 argued that other respondents have not been served, hence, petition can not be heard. Second argument advanced by learned Counsel for the respondent No. 11/tenant is that it was the duty of the landlord to prove that tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted portion. 7. In the opinion of this Court, after the death of the original tenant his all legal heirs become joint tenants. Service of notice on one of the joint tenants is sufficient. This Court is of the further opinion that all joint tenants need not be impleaded in an eviction suit if one joint tenant is impleaded and served, that is sufficient compliance of the service. 8. Learned Single Judge in the case of Varun Gupta (supra) in paragraph No.7 by placing reliance on few judgments of this Court has held that once landlord proves that tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises for required period, then burden shifts to the tenant to rebut the same. 9. In the opinion of this Court if landlord states on oath that tenant has ceased to occupy tenanted shop and doing no business therein amounts to discharge of burden of proof by the landlord and onus to prove that tenant has not ceased to occupy the shop and still doing business therein shift to the tenant. Tenant has to prove that he is still doing business therein by producing accounts book, sales tax registration, income tax return etc. In the present case, tenant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he is still doing business in the tenanted portion. 10. Moreover, original tenant has died. Learned Counsel states that his all legal heirs are well established and some of them are settled abroad. None is doing any business in the shop in question. Arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the landlord seems to be sound. In the opinion of this Court, petition for eviction deserves to be allowed on the ground that tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted shop. 11. Present petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 3.3.2006 and 28.2.2009 are set aside. LRs of the original tenant are directed to vacate the shop in question within two months from today.