proved from the record that from May, 2003 to December, 2003, consumption of electricity was nil, whereas, up to February, 2004, the consumption was 40 units. Also that from April, 2004 to February, 2006, the consumption of electricity in the demised premises was again nil. Though he has been cross-examined, however, nothing lending support to the case of the petitioner-tenant could be elicited therefrom. It is, therefore, proved from the record that during the period April, 2004 till institution of the Rent Petition i.e. 23rd December, 2005, the consumption of the electricity in the demised premises was nil. Meaning thereby that learned Appellate Authority has not committed any illegality or irregularity while arriving at a conclusion that during this period, the petitioner-tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises. The findings so recorded by learned Appellate Authority are legally sustainable as the law applicable in such situation has also been taken note of. Even in Vipin Kumar’s case cited supra, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sohan Lal Khanna V. Amar Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Rent) 29 has held that
