JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The tenant is the petitioner, who aggrieved by the order of eviction dated 18.04.2017 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hamirpur, H.P., has filed the instant Revision Petition. The parties shall be referred to as the landlady'' and the ''tenant''. 2. The landlady sought eviction of the tenant mainly on the ground as contemplated under Section 14 (2) (v) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, regarding the non-use of tenanted premises for more than 12 months preceding the date of filing of the eviction petition. It was averred that the landlady had inducted the respondent as tenant in the shop in question situated in Satya Narayan Mandir Gali, Ward No.6, M.C.Area, Hamirpur, H.P. and he had ceased to occupy the premises for more than 12 months. It was alleged that for the last 4-5 years, the respondent/tenant who had earlier been carrying out the business of hardware in the tenanted premises had switched over to another business in the name and style of M/s Madan Sweets Shop at Housing Board Colony Market, Ward No.7, Hamirpur, H.P., whereas the tenanted premises which were situated in Ward No.6 were not being used by tenant thereafter. 3. The tenant contested the petition by filing reply wherein preliminary objection regarding maintainability was raised. On merits, it was averred that the respondent was continuously doing the business and using the tenanted premises as shop-cum-store. 4. The learned Rent Controller after framing the issues and recording evidence, dismissed the eviction petition, constraining the landlady to file an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. 5. The learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 3.5.2014 set-aside the order of learned Rent Controller and remanded the petition with the direction to decide the same afresh after framing additional issue to the effect "Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises in question continuously for a period of 12 months preceding the date of filing the petition, without reasonable cause". 6. However, this order of the learned Appellate Authority was assailed by the tenant before this Court in Civil Revision No. 52 of 2014 titled as Madan Mohan vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi, which was decided on 12.12.2016 and the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority was set-aside with the observation that the Appellate Authority had no power to order whole case remand. However, it was held that the learned Appellate Authority was legally competent to frame additional issue and make further inquiry relating to additional issue either personally or through Controller during the pendency of appeal. 7. The learned Appellate Authority accordingly framed an additional issue on 07.01.2017 which reads as under: l.(A). Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the premises in question continuously for a period of 12 months preceding to date of filing the petition, without reasonable cause? OPP 8. The parties led their respective evidence and after recording the same, the learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, constraining the tenant to file the instant Revision Petition. 9. In order to come to the conclusion as to whether the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises 12 months prior to the filing of the eviction petition, one would essentially be required to discuss the evidence that was led by the parties not only at the time when the issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller but the evidence that has come on record at the time of framing of the additional issue by the learned Appellate Authority. 10. However, before adverting to these statements, it has to be determined as to whether the premises comprised of shop or store, even though, ultimately the same may not have much bearing on the merits of the case as both store as well as shop fall under description of non-residential premises. 11. The landlady while replying to legal notice issued by the tenant dated 9.5.1998, has clearly admitted that the tenant was having one shop and in addition thereto one room which was taken on rent from landlady which was being used as a store as would be evident from para-4 of the reply, which reads as under: "4. The contents of para are incorrect, baseless and denied. Your shop is quite far away from my shop. Therefore, tress passing is out of question. The room you are using as store in my premises which you never opened in my presence. The store is out of use and the same be vacated." 12. In order to prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises in question as alleged, the landlady examined as many as eight witnesses before the learned Rent Controller. The room you are using as store in my premises which you never opened in my presence. The store is out of use and the same be vacated." 12. In order to prove that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises in question as alleged, the landlady examined as many as eight witnesses before the learned Rent Controller. PW-1 Tapai Parshad, Junior Assistant in the office of Excise and Taxation Officer, Hamirpur, even though, appeared as a witness and even got recorded his examination-in-chief. However, while being confronted with some documents the statement of the witness was deferred for want of complete record, but admittedly the said witness did not turn up thereafter and, therefore, his statement cannot be read in evidence. 13. PW-2 Rajinder Singh, Clerk, M.C. Hamirpur produced the records of the case, but his testimony is of no avail as he has only stated that there was no licence for hardware issued in favour of Madan Hardware for the year 2004-05. 14. PW-3 is the landlady and stated in examination-in-chief that the tenant had not been residing in the premises in question for the last 5-6 years and had been carrying out the profession of Halwai in a shop in the Housing Board Colony, Hamirpur. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that no electricity had been installed in the premises in question. She further admitted that on 17.12.2006 the defendant had been placing his goods in the shop. 15. PW-4 Amar Chand Sharma is the General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff, who appears to have been examined to cover up the statement of the plaintiff. However, he also failed in his attempt and has stated that the defendant had another shop in Ward No.7 and denied that the shop in question was being used as godown. 16. PW-5 Kehar Singh, claimed that the shop in question was lying closed for the last 3-4 years. But in cross-examination even though he admitted that the tenant had two shops in Ward No.6, but he did not know the name of the owners thereof. He only claimed to have purchased lime from the tenant at one point of time. 17. PW-6 Suresh Kumar, Assistant Taxation and Sales Officer, Hamirpur proved on record the excise returns of the tenant for the year 2003-2004 wherein the sale shown was Rs.37.500/- and tax deposited was Rs.3000/-. He only claimed to have purchased lime from the tenant at one point of time. 17. PW-6 Suresh Kumar, Assistant Taxation and Sales Officer, Hamirpur proved on record the excise returns of the tenant for the year 2003-2004 wherein the sale shown was Rs.37.500/- and tax deposited was Rs.3000/-. While for the year 2004-05, no sale was shown by the tenant and he had filed ''NIL'' return. However, for the year 2006-07, sale of Rs.80,000/- was shown and tax of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited. Whereas for the year 2007-08 upto 31.12.2007 a sum of Rs.56,000/- were shown towards sale and Rs.7,000/- had been deposited towards tax. 18. Ex.D-4 is the return of the 1 st quarter of the year 2006-07 wherein sale of Rs.20,000/- upon which tax of Rs.2500/- was paid. Likewise according to Ex.D-5 a sum of Rs.2500/- was paid towards tax. Ex.D-6 is the return of the 2 nd quarter of 2006-07 wherein sale of Rs.20,000/- upon which Rs.2500/- were deposited towards tax. To similar effect is Ext.D-7 and Ex.D-8. 19. PW-7 Rajesh Sharma is the procured witness as is evident from his statement, otherwise also his statement is of no assistance to the landlady. 20. PW-8 Dinu Ram is the Shop Inspector whose statement again is of no assistance to the landlady because what he has stated in examination-in-chief was that the name of tenant has been entered at serial No.366 maintained under the Shop & Commercial Establishment Act dealing in Hardware. He has further stated that R.C. was renewed for the year 2004-05 and was not renewed thereafter i.e. after 2005. However, in cross-examination, the witness has clearly stated that he was not brought the records after 2005 and claimed to have joined the department only in October, 2007. He admitted that the shop had not been inspected since October, 2007. Hefurther admitted that in case the R.C. is not renewed under the Shop Act, then a complaint is lodged. 21. Landlady led further evidence before the learned Appellate Authority on the additional issue framed by it and while doing so, examined as many as seven witnesses. APW-1 is Amar Chand Sharma, Power of Attorney holder of landlady, who in his affidavit Ext. APW1/A by way of evidence wherein he stated that the tenant/respondent had closed his hardware business activity and has not opened his shop. Since then the premises earlier were being used as shop-cum-store. APW-1 is Amar Chand Sharma, Power of Attorney holder of landlady, who in his affidavit Ext. APW1/A by way of evidence wherein he stated that the tenant/respondent had closed his hardware business activity and has not opened his shop. Since then the premises earlier were being used as shop-cum-store. In cross-examination, he admitted that the respondent had two shops in Satya Narayan Mandir Gali. The owners of one of the shop is landlady whereas the other shop is owned by Mahant of the temple. He admitted that there is no electricity connection in the demised premises, whereas there is electricity meter in the other shop. He denied that the tenant is carrying on the business of hardware and was using the disputed premises as a store. He volunteered to state that it is a shop-cum-store. The shop under the name and style of K. Creations Lady Tailor is running in the Gali for the last three years and was belonging to Uttar Pradesh. 22. APW-2 is Rakesh Kumar, tailor at K. Creations Ladies Tailor Shop, who in his affidavit, Ext. APW2/A filed similar affidavit as that of APW1/A and in cross-examination admitted that there are two shops in occupation of the tenant in Satya Narayan Mandir Gali and the distance between the two shops is 10 steps. He claimed that there is electricity connection in the demised premises. He admitted that the tenant was using the shop of the landlady as a store and claimed that he had never seen the tenant opening store before 8.00 a.m. and after 9.00 p.m. However, he admitted that the respondent was continuously running the business in the shop of Mahant. 23. APW-3 Vijay Kumar is the Clerk in the office of Excise and Taxation Department, Hamirpur and stated that the shop in question i.e. Madan Hardware Store, had not filed any record regarding sale and purchase with the Department since 2003. As per the record, the sale purchase returns have been filed as ''NIL''. He further stated that there was nothing on record to suggest that the tenant had sought fresh permission for running the business after affidavit dated 30.7.2005. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that as per the return w.e.f.1.4.2006 to 30.6.2006 the sale has been reflected. He further admitted that tax to this effect had been deposited. He further stated that there was nothing on record to suggest that the tenant had sought fresh permission for running the business after affidavit dated 30.7.2005. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that as per the return w.e.f.1.4.2006 to 30.6.2006 the sale has been reflected. He further admitted that tax to this effect had been deposited. He further admitted that w.e.f. 1.7.2006 to 30.9.2006, the sale has been reflected alongwith deposit of the tax. He further admitted that the sale has been reflected in the next quarter and the last quarter as well. 24. APW-4 Sohan Lal who was having additional Charge of Shop Inspector, Hamirpur deposed that the proprietor of the shop is Madan Mohan Sharma and the same was opened in the year 1984 and no employee had been engaged. The last renewal of the shop licence was upto 2004 and thereafter this licence had not been renewed. While being cross-examined, he had no knowledge about the shop and could not say that the shop is still running since 2004 uptodate. 25. APW-5 Rakesh Himalyan, Senior Assistant, Electrical Sub Division No.II, HPSEB, Hamirpur produced the record pertaining to Electricity Meter installed in the shop of Madan Lal S/o Sh. K.C. Sharma, near Satya Narayan Mandir, Hamirpur. He brought the consumption record relating to this meter for the last 10 years i.e. w.e.f. 2006 onwards. In cross-examination, he claimed the statement/document Ex.APW5/Ato have been signed by the SDO, Electrical Sub DMsion-II, Hamirpur. He admitted that the electricity meter is continuing till date and the payment is being made regularly. 26. APW-6 Garib Dass filed his affidavit Ex.APW6/A wherein he claimed to have purchased the hardware items from the tenant and further claimed the shop to have been closed about 12-13 years back. In cross-examination, he admitted that the landlady was known to him. He admitted that the tenant had two shops near Satya Narayan Mandir, out of which, one was a shop and other one was a store. But feigned ignorance regarding the shop still being with the tenant. 27. APW-7 Parkash Chand, Tax Assistant, proved the income tax return of Madan Mohan Sharma, Proprietor M/s Madan Sweets. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that in the tax returns produced by him the address of the firm had not been mentioned. 28. Now adverting to the evidence led by the tenant before the leaned Rent Controller. 27. APW-7 Parkash Chand, Tax Assistant, proved the income tax return of Madan Mohan Sharma, Proprietor M/s Madan Sweets. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that in the tax returns produced by him the address of the firm had not been mentioned. 28. Now adverting to the evidence led by the tenant before the leaned Rent Controller. Tenant himself appeared as RW-1 and stated that he is running hardware shop by the name of Madan Hardware in the Satya Narayan Mandir since 1983, the owner whereof was Mahant Kamal Dass. He took another premises from the landlady on rent in the year 1987 which was being used as a store as it was smaller than the shop. He further claimed that he had been conducting business from this shop and regularly filing the return of his sale tax and other returns. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not sit in the demised premises. He further claimed to have been doing the business from both the shops. 29. RW-2 Vijay Kumar claimed himself to be salesman since 2002 in the shop being run by tenant in the Housing Board Colony and stated that tenant was having a hardware shop where he was otherwise regularly sitting and came to the said shop in the evening. He denied the suggestion that the disputed shop was lying closed for the last 5-6 years. 30. RW-3 Parshotam Lal, stated that he had been purchasing all his hardware for the last 17-18 years from the shop being run by the tenant. Even though this witness was cross-examined but nothing material could be elicited therefrom. 31. RW-4 Raghu Nath also claimed to be regular customer of the tenant in his statement given in examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the shop in question was lying closed. 32. The tenant did not lead any evidence before the learned Appellate Authority on the additional issue framed by it as is evident from the statement so recorded on 15.2.2017. 33. Section 14(2)(v) of the Act, reads as under: 14. Eviction of tenants. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. 33. Section 14(2)(v) of the Act, reads as under: 14. Eviction of tenants. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied - (v) that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building or rented land for a continuous period of twelve months without reasonable cause. 34. It is more than settled that the initial burden to show that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for 12 months is always on the landlord. He has to adduce tangible evidence to prove the fact that as on the date of filing the petition, the tenant was not occupying the building continuously for 12 months. Once such evidence is adduced, the burden shifts on the tenant to prove that there was reasonable cause for his having ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of 12 months. 35. What would be the meaning of "occupy" as used in the Rent Act is no longer res integra and was considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dunlop India Ltd. vs. A.A. Rahna and another, 2011 (5) SCC 778 wherein it was held as under: "21. The word "occupy" used in Section 11(4) (v) is not synonymous with legal possession in technical sense. It means actual possession of the tenanted building or use thereof for the purpose for which it is let out. If the building is let out for residential purpose and the tenant is shown to be continuously absent from the building for six months, the Court may presume that he has ceased to occupy the building or abandoned it. If the building is let out for business or commercial purpose, complete cessation of the business/ commercial activity may give rise to a presumption that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. In either case, legal possession of the building by the tenant will, by itself, be not sufficient for refusing an order of eviction unless the tenant proves that there was reasonable cause for his having ceased to occupy the building." 36. In either case, legal possession of the building by the tenant will, by itself, be not sufficient for refusing an order of eviction unless the tenant proves that there was reasonable cause for his having ceased to occupy the building." 36. There can be no dispute that the business of the tenant as is being alleged by the landlady in the premises in question can only be carried out in case necessary returns under Sales Tax/ VAT as were required at that time have been filed/furnished. No reliance can be placed on the electricity bills or the statements of the witnesses from the electricity board or the oral testimonies in teeth of the contemporaneous official record, more especially when these officials have no axe to grind. 37. Now adverting to the testimony of the witnesses from the Tax Department, no credence can be lent to the testimony of PW-1 Tapai Parshad as this witness did not make himself available for cross-examination after his statement having been deferred. 38. PW-6 Suresh Kumar has in his statement categorically stated that the tenant had been regularly filing his returns, even though for the year 2005-06, ''NIL'' return had been filed, but thereafter again the tenant had been filing his returns regularly for the period relevant for the purpose i.e. February, 2006 to March, 2007 as Rs.80,000/- had been shown as sale in the return filed for the year 2006-07 and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been paid as tax. 39. Similarly, the statement of Vijay Kumar, who appeared as APW-3 in the evidence led before the learned Appellate Authority also goes to show that the tenant had filed his return w.e.f. 1.4.2006 to 30.6.2006 wherein sale had been reflected. The same was the position for the period w.e.f. 1.7.2006 to 13.9.2006 and likewise, the identical was the position qua next quarter and last quarter. 40. Thus, what can be deduced from the statements of the witnesses examined from the Tax Department is that the business was being carried out from the premises in question and tenant was paying his taxes. 41. Unfortunately, the learned Appellate Authority did not appreciate any of the statements in right perspective and chose to rely upon the judicial precedents which mainly related to non-consumption of electricity in the tenanted premises and were not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. 41. Unfortunately, the learned Appellate Authority did not appreciate any of the statements in right perspective and chose to rely upon the judicial precedents which mainly related to non-consumption of electricity in the tenanted premises and were not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. To say the least, the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly allowed and the order passed by learned Appellate Authority on 18.04.2017 is set-aside and that of the learned Rent Controller is ordered to be restored, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 43. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.