The burden is on the landlord to prove the tenant's cessation of occupation for six months, and if satisfied, the burden shifts to the tenant to show reasonable cause for non-occupation. The word 'occupation' in the context of the Act denotes the tenant's actual physical use of the building.

The net was spread wide by a landlord to catch his tenant at least on one of the many grounds set on it. Ultimately the tenant was caught on one ground. which was upheld by the authorities under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1965 (for short 'the Act'). Of course that one ground is enough to get an order of eviction. Rent Control Court.and the Appellate Authority found concurrently that the tenant ceased to occupy the building for more than six months without reasonable cause. Revisional authority did not interfere with the finding. Consequently. the tenant now faces threat of imminent eviction. Hence he filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in challenge of the said order of eviction.

2. Tenant was conducting a hotel business in the building. Landlord alleged that the tenant kept the building closed for about one year preceding the date of application. Tenant disputed the allegation and contended that he was conducting business in the building all through. Landlord took out a commission to inspect the shop and the commissioner who went to the place found the shop remaining closed and also observed certain features such as spider webs and collection of dust on some portion of the room. Commissioner. on those features. reported that no human activity would have been carried on in the room at least for some months.

3. Landlord got himself examined as a witness besides examining one neighboring shopkeeper. Both of them testified that the room remained closed for a longtime. more than the period envisaged in S.11(4)(v) of the Act. Tenant and one witness said that hotel business was being conducted in the shop room even till the previous evening of Commissioner's visit. Rent Control Court as well as Appellate Authority believed the evidence of the landlord and declined to believe the evidence adduced by the tenant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ tenant contended that Commissioner. who visited the shop room on a second occasion. did not give any prior notice to the tenant and hence Commission report does not have the imprimatur provided in Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But. the. Commissioner was examined as a witness and then he deposed that since the tenant declined to open the room during

his first visit even in spite of his request. he had to go there on the next day and that the tenant did not turn up then and hence the commissioner had to peep through some holes to observe the details. When the landlord examined the Commissioner as a witness. his deposition became evidence. Hence whatever drawback the commission report acquired on account of commissioner's failure to give intimation regarding the second visit. would not render his testimony in court vitiated. Commissioner's testimony in court has to be. considered like any other evidence. of any other witness. As the fact-finding courts placed reliance on his evidence. the revisional court rightly refrained from upsetting the finding.

5. Learned counsel alternatively contended that Rent Control Court went wrong in holding that burden of proof is on the tenant to prove that he was in occupation for some time. The basis for the said contention is the observation made by the Rent Control Court that "in the circumstances the presumption is that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for fix months continuously without reasonable cause. it is for the tenant to show that it was not unoccupied for six months continuously". But a reading of the entire paragraph in the order (of the Rent Control Court) shows that what the Rent Control Court meant is that the burden of proving reasonable cause for non-occupation of the building is on the tenant.

6. No doubt. a tenant is not liable 10 be evicted on the ground of cessation of occupation unless cessation stretched over at least a period of six months. In other words. even if a tenant did not occupy the building for five months and twentynine days. it wo