Radhakrishnan, J.

It is necessary that the tenant should abandon the building so as to attract Sec. 11 (4) (v) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Rent Control Court concluded that mere cessation of occupation is not sufficient to attract Sec. 11(4)(v), but there must be an abandonment of the building. Rent Control Court held that since tenant has not abandoned the building and continued to pay rent, there is not cessation of occupation by abandonment and hence Sec. 11(4)(v) would not be attracted. The order of the Rent Control Court was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Hence this revision petition by the landlord.

3. Petition schedule building was rented out to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.80/- in the year 1972 for lodging purposes. Respondent was a stenographer in the judicial department and he retired from service in the year 1986. According to the landlord, after retirement tenant continued to occupy the room for a period of two years. Later in the year 1990 he got married and shifted his residence to Annamanada, his native place. Tenant therefore ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months prior to the date of filing of the petition. In order to establish the case, landlord was examined as P.W.1. Commission was taken out and the commissioner was examined as P.W.2. P.W.3 was a former tenant.

4. Tenant resisted the petition contenting that there is no cessation of occupation. He was working as Confidential Assistant in the judicial department and after retirement he was working in various inquiry commissions and advocate’s office. Though he got married on 17.1.1988 he continued to stay in the tenanted premises and was going home only occasionally. From 19.11.1987 respondent had worked as Confidential Assistant in various Commissions of Inquiry. Since March 1994 he is conducting job typing work in the scheduled premises and therefore there is no cessation of occupation of the tenanted premises. In order to establish the case tenant got himself examined as R.W.1. R.Ws 2 and 3 were also examined on his side and Exts.B1 to B4 documents were produced.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent Sri. S. Sreekumar tried to support the judgment of the Appellate Authority and submitted that this is not a fit case warranting interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction. Respondent-tenant is occupying the tenanted premises from 1977 onwards. He retired from service on 31.5.1987. Landlord had earlier filed R.C.P.No.178 of 1983 under Sec. 11(3) of the Act and that was dismissed. Though the matter was taken up in appeal and revision, landlord could not succeed. Earlier rent control petition was filed under Sec. 11(3) which, in our view, has no relevance when a plea under Sec. 11(4) (v) is adjudicated. Landlord has to establish that tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition and it is for the tenant to show that there is no cessation of occupation continuously for a period of six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition and even if there is cessation of occupation, tenant could establish that there is reasonable cause for the same.

6. We may first examine as to whether landlord has succeeded in establishing that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of six months prior to the date of filing of the rent control petition. Landlord was examined as P.W.1. Landlord’s case is that after the marriage in the year 1990 tenant never used to reside in the lodging house and that he has settled down at his native place at Annamanada. Landlord apart from his oral evidence has examined P.W.3. P.W.3 is a teacher and was formerly a tenant in one of the rooms in the scheduled building. P.W.3 deposed that the tenant was not seen upto December 1993. He further deposed that four or five years prior to December 1993 tenant was not s