Judgment

SHARMA, J.:- This appeal by a tenant defendant is directed against the decree for his eviction from a shop on the ground mentioned in S. 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which renders the tenant liable for eviction if he has ceased to occupy the rented premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. The questions which are involved in this case are whether a tenant can be said to have ceased to occupy a building merely for the reason that he temporarily suspends tire actual physical user thereof, and whether a landlord is entitled to a decree even if the tenant has re-occupied the premises before the eviction proceeding was commenced.

2. The landlord-respondent filed the present application for eviction of the appellant before the rent controller in March, 1973 and inter alia pleaded that for a continuous period of more than four months the appellant had ceased to occupy the shop during 1969 to 1971 and he was, therefore, liable to be ejected. The appellant disputed the allegation, but, the rent controller as well as the Appellate Authority rejected the defence and accepted the plaintiffs plea. After unsuccessfully moving the High Court under S. 15(5) of the Act, the tenant had filed the present appeal by special leave.

3. The grounds on which a tenant can be asked to quit are mentioned under S. 13(2) of the Act, and under clause (v) thereof the controller may pass an order for the tenants eviction if he is satisfied,

"13(2)(v) : That where the building is situated in a place other than a hill-station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for, a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause,"

Mrs. Urmila Kapoor appearing in support of the appeal contended that the appellant has all along been in possession of the shop which was never vacated and merely for the reason that the shop remained closed for a temporary period he can not be said to have ceased to occupy the same. The argument is that the appellants occupation of the shop was never interrupted as it was in his effective control, although closed and secured under the appellants lock which nobody ever disturbed. We do not find ourselves in a position to accept he interpretation of the section as attempted on behalf of the appellant. The reason of including the clause (v) in S. 13(2) is to ensure that buildings, which are scarce in number specially in the towns, necessitating rent control legislation, do not remain unused at the instance of tenants who do not actually need them. A tenant Who is in possession of a building in the legal sense only cannot be said to be in occupation thereof for the purpose of S. 13(2)(v) ; otherwise a question of his eviction as envisaged in that section would not arise. The section, by making provisions for his ejectment, assumes that he is in possession, but, still includes cessation of occupation as one of the grounds. The clause, therefore, has to be interpreted in this back ground and it must take colour from the context. We, therefore, hold that if a tenant stops the business which he is carrying on in a shop and closes the premises continuously for a period of four months without a reasonable, cause he will be liable for eviction.

4. The other point urged by Mrs. Kapoor needs more serious consideration. The nonoccupation of the premises by the tenant did not continue after 1971 and the eviction petition was filed in 1973. Is it permissible to hold, in this situation, that the ground mentioned in S. 13(2)(v) has been made out? On behalf of the respondent it has been contended that since in a number of Rent Acts of other States a similar ground specifically requires such non-occupation for a period immediately preceding the date on which the ejectment application is filed, the present Act which does not use identical language should be interpreted differently. Reliance has also been placed on the observations of this Court i