Radhakrishnan, J.

Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for by respondent landlord under section 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. On appeal by the landlord Appellate Authority allowed eviction under section 11(4)(v) of the Act, the legality of which is under challenge in this revision.

2. The tenanted premises was let out to respondent on 30-1-81 on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. Landlord has provided electric connection to the shop room. As per the terms of the rent deed that tenant has to pay rent on the first of every month and also to pay the electricity charges. Rent was kept in arrears, so also the electricity charges to the Board. Due to the non-user of the premises the value and utility of the building was also reduced materially and permanently. Further due to the failure to pay electricity charges the Electricity Board disconnected the supply of electricity and later dismantled the equipments. Landlord had also filed OS.90/96 for recovery of rent. Later the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was made applicable to Thanneermukkom Village, consequently he filed RCP.41/90 under section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v). The claim under section 11(4)(v) was dismissed and under section 11(2)(b) was allowed. Later he filed the present petition, RCP.1/96 under section 11(4)(v) of the Act.

3. Tenant resisted the petition contending that the petition is barred by the principles of res judicata. Further it was also stated that the tenanted premises is being used for storing cement and other materials and there is no necessity of opening the shop every day. Further it was also stated that the business conducted by the tenant in the tenanted premises is of such a nature that it does not require electricity. Landlord in order to establish his case got himself examined as PW1. PW2 is Electrical Engineer examined on the side of the landlord. PW3 is a local witness. Landlord produced Ext.A1 to A4 documents. C1 and C2 are commission reports. Commissioner was examined as PW4. Tenant got himself examined as CPW1. No documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the tenant.

4. The specific case pleaded by the landlord in his petition as well as in his oral evidence was that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of more than six months prior to the date of filing of the petition without any reasonably cause and that the premises is not being used for the purpose for which it was let out. Landlord submitted intermittent opening of the shop or the mere presence of the tenant in the premises would not show that the tenant is using the premises. To resolve the controversy it is necessary to examine the scope of section 11(4)(v). The provision is extracted below for easy reference.

“11(4) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, --

xx xx xx xxx xxx

(v) if the tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause.”

The word “occupy” occurring in section 11(4)(v) has got different meaning in different context. The meaning of the word “occupy” in the context of section 11(4)(v) has to be understood in the light of the object and purpose of the Rent Control Act in mind. The rent control legislation is intended to give protection to the tenant, so that there will not be interference with the user of the tenanted premises during the tenancy. Landlord cannot disturb the possession and enjoyment of the tenanted premises. Legislature has guardedly used the expression “occupy” in section 11(4)(v) instead of “possession”. Occupy in certain context indicates mere physical presence, but in other context actual enjoyment. Occupation includes possession as its primary element, and also includes “enjoyment”. The word “occupy” sometimes indicates legal possession in the technical sense; at other times mere physical presence. We have to ex