Sankaran, J.

The revision petitioner/landlord leased out the petition schedule building on 1.3.1984 to the respondent, the Idukki district Wholesale Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd., on a monthly rent of Rs.750/-. The building was taken by the tenant for the specific purpose of conducting a provision store under the name and style “Priya Department Stores” at Thodupuzha. The landlord alleged that rent was kept in arrears and that the tenant ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of three years since December 1991. Without any reasonable cause. It was contended that the building was not even opened by the tenant for any purpose and that it was not occupied by the tenant. The landlord also stated in the Rent Control Petition that the respondent Society ran into huge loss and that it was incapable of revival. On these allegations the Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(2) (b) and Section 11(4) (v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

2. We are not concerned with the ground under Section 11(2) (b) in this revision since that ground was not pressed by the landlord at the time of hearing of the Rent Control Petition. The tenant contended in the counter statement that for a short period, the respondent was forced to stop running of the shop due to the strike of its employees. But the respondent has never ceased to occupy the premises. The shop room was being opened almost on all days. Due to financial problems, the respondent could not procure more stock. The respondent availed a loan of Rs.16.82 lakhs from the Government for the purpose of revitalizing the business carried on in the petition schedule building. Labour dispute was commenced in October 1991 and it ended on 19.3.1992. The shop was functioning thereafter and at the time of filing of the Rent Control Petition as well.

3. The Rent Control Court considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, RWs.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence consisting of Ext.A1 and B1 to B16 and held that the tenant ceased to occupy the building for the statutory period of six months under Section 11(4) (v) of the Act. It was also held that cessation of occupation was without any reasonable cause. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and held that the landlord failed to establish the ground under Section 11(4) (v) of the Act.

4. It has come out in evidence that the respondent Society was running five branches in respect of its business under the Thodupuzha region. All except the one carried on in the petition schedule building were closed down. The employees of the respondent Society conducted a work-to-rule strike for the period from 5.8.1991 to 6.10.1991. Later from 7.10.1991 onwards there was a full-fledged strike by the employees and the dispute between the employees and the management were settled as per the settlement dated 19.3.1992, arrived at as per the mediation by the Honourable Minister for Co-operation and also the local Member of Legislative Assembly. Ext.B8 would prove that salary was paid to the employees from September, 1991 to August 1993. The muster roll for the years 1991 to August, 1993 was produced by the tenant and it was marked as Ext.B7. Exts.B9 to B14 are the statements regarding verification of stock. Ext.B15 is the daily sales statement from 1.1.1991 to 31.3.1992. The documentary evidence would disclose that the Officials from the Department concerned were periodically inspecting the premises and checking the stock and accounts. The evidence of RW2 would disclose that the staff were directed to be present on all days. It has also come out in evidence that the business of the respondent Society was running in loss from its inception and attempts were made to revive the business. Exts. B5 and B6, the Government Order and the order issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies respectively, would show that efforts were made by the respondent tenant to get a loan sanct