JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against Judgment dated 17.12.2012 rendered by learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 30-S/14 of 2011. 2. “Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'landlord' for convenience sake) has instituted a Petition against petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant' for convenience sake) on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2007 and also on the ground that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for the last 12 months without any reasonable cause and tenant has shifted to his native place. Tenanted premises were bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out necessary repairs, which can not be carried out without eviction of the building in question. Building in question is 80 years old. Rebuilding/ reconstruction work could not be carried out without vacation of premises in question. Learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on 31.5.2011 and ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was in arrears of rent since January 2006 till 31.5.2011 amounting to `3,200/-. He was liable to pay statutory interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Further, he was ordered to pay the amount within a period of 30 days. The tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in question for continuous 12 months and premises are bona fide required by landlord for the purpose of re-building/ reconstruction. Tenant preferred an Appeal against Order dated 31.5.2011 before the Appellate Authority and learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 17.12.2012. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate has argued that his client has paid rent within 30 days. He then contended that landlord has failed to prove that his client has ceased to occupy premises in question for continuous 12 months without reasonable cause. He then also contended that landlord has failed to prove that he required the premises bona fide for re-building/ reconstruction. 4. Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate has supported the Order and Judgment passed by the authorities below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 6. PW-1 Harish Kumar has appeared as PW-1. According to him, Electricity Meter was installed in Metropole Cottage in the name of A.N. Sharma against account No. AUSC-354D. Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate has supported the Order and Judgment passed by the authorities below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 6. PW-1 Harish Kumar has appeared as PW-1. According to him, Electricity Meter was installed in Metropole Cottage in the name of A.N. Sharma against account No. AUSC-354D. He was posted as J.E. He conducted meter reading in the month of June 2008. He proved record Ext. PW-8/A. The same was prepared as per ledger. According to him, premises in dispute remained locked during day time. In his cross-examination he admitted that electricity consumption is shown in Ext. PW-8/A. It is sometimes recorded as ‘nil’ and at some time, there was a little consumption. 7. PW-2 Kamla Devi has proved bills Ext. PW-2/B to PW-2/D. Telephone connection was permanently disconnected on 17.6.2008. 8. S.K. Sharma PW-3 has deposed that landlord was one of the partners in the account and Pran Sachdeva was operating this account. In both these accounts, transaction was done in Lakhs. Loan could also be provided by the bank to the landlord. 9. Shri Pavinder Thakur has deposed that the tenant was teaching in DAV School uptil retirement and has shifted to his native place. Nobody was occupying premises for the last 2-3 years. 10. Shri Yashwant Singh PW-5 has deposed that plan submitted by the landlord was not accepted and some objections were raised. These were removed. 11. Surjeet Singh PW-6 has proved report Ext. PW-6/B. He has categorically deposed that the building is in dilapidated condition. Same could not be rebuilt/reconstructed without evicting the tenant. Building was more than 100 years old. 12. Dr. Pran Sachdeva has appeared as PW-7. He was holding Power of Attorney on behalf of landlord. He was well conversant with the facts of the case and disputed premises. According to him, premises were in dilapidated condition being 80 years old. Landlord wanted to rebuilt/reconstruct the premises on old lines. Map was also already submitted with M.C. Shimla. He had necessary funds for rebuilding/reconstructing premises. Premises were lying locked for preceding 12 months prior to the date of filing the petition. Tenant has ceased to occupy premises. 13. According to Jamna Dass RW-1 building plans were submitted by landlord and this plan was rejected on 4.11.2010. Map was also already submitted with M.C. Shimla. He had necessary funds for rebuilding/reconstructing premises. Premises were lying locked for preceding 12 months prior to the date of filing the petition. Tenant has ceased to occupy premises. 13. According to Jamna Dass RW-1 building plans were submitted by landlord and this plan was rejected on 4.11.2010. However, he deposed that in case landlord submits the drawings, same would be sanctioned. 14. B.C. Sharma RW-2 visited the spot on 20.4.2010. He proved report Ext. PW-2/A, photographs RW-2/B1 to RW-2/B5. Rebuilding could be carried out without evicting premises by the tenant. He could not depose whether the building was 100 years old. According to him, building was well maintained. 15. Tenant has appeared as RW-3. He could not prove postal receipt that cheques were sent by him to the landlord by post. He denied that telephone connection was disconnected in the year 2004. According to him, he and his wife were using mobile phones. He admitted that electricity consumption but denied that reading was nil. He denied that premises were locked and showed ignorance that landlord has sufficient funds for rebuilding/reconstruction. 16. PW-8/A has been provided by PW-1 Shri Harish Kumar. Relevant period for the purpose of petition is 12 months prior to the filing of the petition. Petition was filed on 7.1.2008. Thus period from 1.1.2007 to January 2008 is relevant. According to Ext. PW-8/A, consumption of electricity for the months of January to July and October to November was very minimal. According to the bills proved vide Ext. PW-2/B, payments of telephone installed were nil. Telephone was disconnected on 17.6.2008. Bills are primarily of the monthly rental. It has come in the statement of PW-1 Harish Kumar that the premises remained locked during day time. PW-4 Pavinder Thakur has also deposed that tenant shifted to his native place. Premises were locked for the last 2-3 years. PW-6 Surjeet Singh has also deposed that disputed premises were locked since long. Similarly, Dr. Pran Sachdeva PW-7 has stated that premises were locked for 12 months preceding date of filing petition. Landlord has conclusively proved that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for the preceding 12 months of filing of the petition. 17. Now, the Court will advert to the plea taken by landlord qua rebuilding/reconstruction of the premises. Surjeet PW-6 has visited the spot. He proved Ext. Landlord has conclusively proved that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for the preceding 12 months of filing of the petition. 17. Now, the Court will advert to the plea taken by landlord qua rebuilding/reconstruction of the premises. Surjeet PW-6 has visited the spot. He proved Ext. PW-6/B. According to him, building was more than 100 years old. It was in dilapidated condition. Rebuilding/reconstruction could not be carried out without evicting the tenant from the premises in question. Dr. Pran Sachdeva has deposed that building was about 80 years old and same could not be rebuild/reconstructed without eviction of the tenant. Landlord has resources as per statement of S.K. Sharma PW-3. Bank was ready and willing to give loan for the purpose of reconstruction/ rebuilding of the premises. 18. Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate has argued that building plans of landlord have not been approved. Sanctioning of building plans is not necessary for the purpose of establishing that premises are required bona fide for the purpose of rebuilding/reconstruction. Rather, it has come in the statement of PW-5 Yashwant Singh that though building plans of landlord were rejected but in case he submits the same again, it would be considered in accordance with law and permission would be granted. Now, as far as statement of BC Sharma, RW-2 is concerned, he was not sure whether the building was 100 years old. It was not necessary for the landlord to bring more witnesses from the locality as argued by Mr. Y.P. Sood. It is quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters. 19. Mr. Y.P. Sood has also argued that landlord has in fact not sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that premises were required by him bona fide but for building/ reconstruction of the premises on old lines. Court has gone through the petition. It is specifically mentioned that premises were bona fide required for rebuilding/ reconstruction. Tenant has not led any evidence to prove that tenanted premises were separate and independent from the Metropole Cottage. 20. This Court in Vipin Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) Supp CurLJ 421 has held that if consumption of electricity was minimal, inference could be drawn that tenant has ceased to occupy premises. It was held as under: “14. Tenant has not led any evidence to prove that tenanted premises were separate and independent from the Metropole Cottage. 20. This Court in Vipin Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) Supp CurLJ 421 has held that if consumption of electricity was minimal, inference could be drawn that tenant has ceased to occupy premises. It was held as under: “14. Learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Godharam versus Vasudev Prasad Sharma, 1994 (1) RCR 496 has held that when the landlord pleads and prove that the tenant did not use the premises for six months and was liable to ejectment, onus shifts to tenant to prove that nouser was for reasonable cause. The tenant had to take defence of reasonable cause. Learned Single Judge has held as under: “ 11. In the instant case, the appellant/ tenant did not take a defence in the pleading that the accommodation so let remained unused because of the ‘reasonable cause’, but his case is that his business never remained closed nor there was any non user till the date of the institution of the suit. The tenant led evidence to prove that the accommodation was continuously in use. As after the close of hotel business, which was being looked after by his son, Ramdayal DW- 4, bicycle shop was opened. To prove that the tenant did not produce any account-books, Sales-tax returns, Shops and Establishment registration or other convincing evidence that after close of hotel business, shop of bicycle was started which was continuing. On the other hand, it came in the evidence that the defendant’s son, after the close of the hotel business, started fuel wood Tal at his residence. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the two courts rightly recorded the finding that the accommodation so let was lying unused for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of institution of the suit. 12. During the course of evidence, the tenant also took a stand that in the period of emergency, a tin shed which was part of the accommodation and was constructed by his predecessor tenant, was demolished, therefore, he could not carry out the business. But, no evidence was led to satisfy the Court that because of the demolition of tin shed and the later construction of a water-hut, the business of hotel could not be carried on. But, no evidence was led to satisfy the Court that because of the demolition of tin shed and the later construction of a water-hut, the business of hotel could not be carried on. Both the Courts disbelieved this evidence as it was having no foundation in the pleadings and have found that after the institution of the suit, the tenant started using the accommodation by opening the cycle shop, which can hardly be a ground of defence as section 12 (1)(d) does not envisage such a plea.” 17. Learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Virender Singh versus Mahabir Singh, 2005 (2) RCR (Rent) 534 has held that initial burden or onus of establishing the ground of ejectment is always upon the landlord by producing cogent material evidence and once it is so established by the landlord, then it is the tenant who is required to prove that he ceased to occupy the demised premises due to some reasonable cause. Learned Single Judge has held as under: “10. The initial burden or onus of establishing the ground of ejectment is always upon the landlord by producing cogent material evidence. The landlord has thus to prove by leading positive evidence that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a period of at least four months immediately prior to the filing of the ejectment petition. Once it is so established by the landlord, then it is the tenant who is required to prove that he ceased to occupy the demised premises due to some reasonable cause. However, where the tenant denies that he had not ceased to occupy the demised premises for the statutory period as required under the Act then the question of proving the reasonableness does not arise. The present is the case where the tenant had denied that he had not ceased to occupy the demised premises. 11. In the instant case, the petition for eviction was filed on 19.9.2000 and the shop in question remained closed from November, 1997 to December, 2000 and no explanation had been furnished by the tenant for the closure of the shop for such a long period except the tenant pleading that the shop was not closed which is not believable in the light of over-whelming evidence produced by the landlord. The landlord not only established that the tenant could not have conducted his business of selling cloth from the demised premises in the absence of electricity connection he had produced evidence of postman and transporter who have also supported his case. The tenant on the other hand failed to produce any documents in the form of receipts, bills, vouchers etc. concerning his shop in support of his claim that he was doing business from the demised shop during the relevant period.” 21. This Court in Sohan Lal Khanna Vs. Amar Singh, reported in (2001) 1 CurLJ (HP) 147, has held that mere casual visit would not clothe the tenant with a status of ‘in occupation of the premises’. This Court held as under: 15. Looking to the evidence of Tax Inspector, Election Kanungo, an official from H.P. State Electricity Board and Smt. Shyama Sharma, it is clear that the suit premises was found locked. The Tax Inspector, in his evidence, stated that whenever he visited the suit premises, it was found locked. The Election Kanungo said that earlier the name of tenant appeared in the voter’s list but subsequently, it was deleted. Smt. Shyama Sharma deposed that since 1988, she was staying in the neighbourhood of tenant and she had always seen the suit premises locked. Regarding Meter reading, it is no doubt true that for few months, there was electricity consumption. In my opinion, however, both the authorities have rightly observed that merely on the basis of consumption of electricity to the extent of few units (5 or 10), it could not be said that a person is staying in the suit premises. Before the Appellate Authority, some judgments were cited in which was said to be irrelevant altogether. It may not be a clinching circumstance but it is one of the facts which has to be considered by the authorities while deciding the issue as to non-user by the tenant. 22. This Court in Gurbachan Singh Vs. Ravinder Nath Bhalla reported in (2006) 1 HLJ 177 , has held as under: “12. ….. In my opinion, the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned authority fully applies to the facts of the present case. The law lid down in S. Gurbax Singh’s case (supra) was followed by this Court in Mohiinder Sigh vs. Mohd. Ibrahim and another, ILR 1982 (Himachal Series) 268. ….. In my opinion, the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned authority fully applies to the facts of the present case. The law lid down in S. Gurbax Singh’s case (supra) was followed by this Court in Mohiinder Sigh vs. Mohd. Ibrahim and another, ILR 1982 (Himachal Series) 268. It was held that on occasional visit by the tenant amounts to non occupation of the building and that the Tribunals below were justified in holding that the tenants had ceased to occupy the building in question for a continuous period of 12 months without reasonable cause. So far as the authority G.C. Bhatia vs. R.L. Seth, 1986 Simla Law Cases 168, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner- tenant, is concerned, in my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the present case the law laid down in the said authority would have no application to the facts of the present case.” 23. This Court in Om Parkash Vs. Subhash Chand reported in (2004) 2 CurLJ (HP) 518 has held as under: “12. ………. The defence of the tenant that he had been using Kerosene lamp or zero Watt electricity bulb is rather laughable. The plea of the tenant that he was doing so since he could not afford to spend on electricity is a gain a factor which goes very much against his assertions qua the occupation of premises also. The cost of kerosene, as calculated by the appellate authority, goes much more than the charges for electricity consumption. This explanation rather strengthens the case of the landlord that tenant has ceased to occupy these premises during the period of 12 months and there was no reasonable cause for the tenant to do so. The conduct of the tenant and the nature of the evidence adduced by him further indicates that he was living in the accommodation of his brother in old Butail Building since his brother appears to have shifted to Rajgarh. Keeping of luggage does not mean anything if the tenant does not come to visit or stay in the premises in question at any time during this period. See ILR (1986) Him. Pra 176, C.C. Bhatia v. R.L. Seith, but no such thing is available in the present case.” 24. This Court in Amrit Lal Sehgal Vs. Keeping of luggage does not mean anything if the tenant does not come to visit or stay in the premises in question at any time during this period. See ILR (1986) Him. Pra 176, C.C. Bhatia v. R.L. Seith, but no such thing is available in the present case.” 24. This Court in Amrit Lal Sehgal Vs. Ramawati Sahu reported in (2007) 1 ShimLC 55 , has held as under: “6. There is also a statement proved by a witness from the electricity office showing the consumption of electricity through the meter installed in the demised premises. As per this statement only 60 units of electricity, 50 units as reflected in the bill for July, 1990 and 10 Units as reflected in the bill for September, 1990, were consumed during the relevant period. This statement also shows that tenant-revision petitioner does not reside in the premises and they only occasionally some people visit the place and stay there. 25. In view of the discussion and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs. The tenant is directed to hand-over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord on or before 30.11.2015.