IMPORTANT POINTS:
" Section 11(4)(v) of the Act, the "cessation of occupation" of more than six months "without sufficient cause" is necessary to be proved by the respondent/ landlord
" If the tenant closed the rented premises for more than six months without doing any business therein, that is too without any sufficient cause, the intention of the legislature`s behind Section 11(4)(v) of the Act has to be established "mere legal possession" does not amount to "occupation" of the rented premises
" The word "occupy" in Section 11(4)(v) of the Act is not synonymous with legal possession, but means actual possession

ANNIE JOHN, J.

1. The petitioner is the respondent/tenant in RCP.No.160/2014 on the file of the Rent Control (Additional Munsiff-I), Court, Kozhikode and the respondent is the petitioner/landlord in RCP. The Rent Control Petition was filed claiming eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act). According to the respondent, the petition schedule building belongs to the petitioner and it was leased out to the respondent for rent of Rs.900/- per month. The rent was enhanced @Rs.1035/- per month. The petition schedule room has been kept closed for more than one year without reasonable cause. The revision petitioner is not doing any business therein.

2. The revision petitioner filed a counter statement contending that when he was attempting to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.1,035/- in March, 2014 and subsequent months, the landlord has refused to accept the same. Even after getting the statutory notice, he tendered the amount. But the landlord refused to accept the same.

3. On the side of the landlord PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner, RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. Ext.C1 was the Advocate Commissioner and his report was marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a).

4. After evaluating the entire evidence, the Rent Control Court has allowed the petition under Section 11(2)(b) and declined under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. Highly aggrieved by the same, the respondent/landlord has preferred RCA.No.181/2016 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. But the Appellate Authority has found that there is cessation of occupation by the revision petitioner therein. Accordingly, eviction has been ordered under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act.

5. The revision petitioner deposited the arrears of rent and as per the order in IA.No.2114/2016 in RCP.No.160/2014 under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act and accordingly IA was allowed and the order under Section 11(2)(b) was set aside by order dated 01.10.2016. At present, the order under challenge is only under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. Highly aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has approached this Court.

6. According to the revision petitioner the finding entered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is incorrect. In the evidence of PW1, he has admitted that construction of RW1's house was going on at the time of visit of the Commissioner. So, he happened to be absent at that time. The Commissioner has reported that there was cessation of occupation, but it is incorrect. Actually he was doing the business in the building. Mere his absence is not a ground to invoke under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act.

7. Mainly the Rent Control Petition has been filed under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. So, at present, there is no order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. But the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. In the evidence, PW1 has clearly stated that the petition schedule shop room was seen closed for the last one year without doing any business therein and that is too without any “sufficient cause”. So, it is obvious that there are perfect pleadings to attract the ingredients as contemplated under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. He has pointed out that in Ext.A1 notice, the landlady has stated that the petition schedule room has kept closed for atleast six months.

8. As per Section 11(4)(v) of the Act, the “cessation of occupation” of more than six months “without sufficient cause” is necessary to be proved by the respondent/ landlord. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has found that the inconsistency in the notice or the pleadings does not have any significance as far as the reliability and trustworthy of the contention of the landlord. PW1 has also stated in the proof affidavit that the revision petitioner has “ceased to occupy” the petition schedule building for more than on