The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'occupation' and 'ceasing to occupy' under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, emphasizing the requirement for continuous occupation and actual use of the premises.

V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral).The petitioner (landlord) having been successful before the learned Rent Controller, but having failed before the learned FirstAppellate Authority is in revision before this Court.

2.The eviction petition was filed on three fold grounds of arrears of rent, the tenant having ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of twelve months without reasonable cause and the premises are required by the landlord to settle his son in business. It was allowed on the first two grounds as admittedly the ground of bona fide requirement was not available to the landlord under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (in short ‘The Act’) as the tenanted premises are commercial in nature and such ground is available only in respect of residential premises.

3.The case of the tenant was that initially a bigger premises was let out to him by the landlord, who later on requested him to vacate a part thereof to settle his son in business, which request was acceded. According to the tenant, he was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of wooden and steel furniture in the premises initially let out to him by the landlord. After he vacated a part thereof on the request of the landlord to enable him to settle his son in business, he shifted the manufacturing component of the business to another premises situate at Anu and continued booking orders in the demised premises. It is also his case that the electricity meter remained in the part of the premises which was vacated by him in favour of the landlord and there is no electricity meter in the demised premises. Thus, the admitted case of the tenant is that he is using the demised premises only for the purpose of booking orders.

4.The parties have led oral and documentary evidence. In the oral evidence, whereas the case of the landlord is that the tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for the last about 6-7 years prior to filing of the petition, according to the tenant, he is in continuous occupation of the said premises, which are being put to use by him for booking orders. However, admittedly, there is no electricity meter in the premises for the last about 14-15 years. The tenanted premises are also not being used for storing or selling any furniture articles. RW-3 Shri R.N. Puri, Shops and Commercial Establishments Inspector, has proved Registration Certificate, Ex. RW­3/A, and forms No. 6 and 7, Ex. RW-3/B and Ex. RW-3/C, to show that the tenant was issued Registration certificate in respect of his furniture business in the tenanted premises for the period 1995-96 to 2001-02 for which he had employed three workmen, namely, Madan Lal, Pawan Kumar and Sonu Ram, yet the fact remains that even according to the tenant himself, he had shifted his business of manufacturing of furniture from the tenanted premises to Anu earlier to that and as such these documents do not have much relevance for the present controversy. For the same reason licences, Ex. RW-5/1 to RW-5/7, which pertain to the period 1994-95 to 2000-01 also do not have much relevance.

5.Now arises the question whether the possession of the tenant over the demised premises would amount to occupation thereof for the purposes of the Act or not. In this regard, it shall be apt to make reference to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court on the subject.

6.In somewhat similar circumstances in Ram Dass vs. Davinder, (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 684, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under vide para 7 of the report:“7.The terms “possession” and “occupy” are incommon parlance used interchangeably. However, in law, possession over a property may amount to holding it as an owner but to occupy is to keep possession of by being present in it. The rent control legislations are the outcome of paucity of accommodations. Most of the rent control legislations, in force in different States, expect the tenant to occupy the tenancy premises. If he himself ceas