Ceasing to occupy a building without reasonable cause amounts to eviction.

This is a petition preferred by the landlord whose application for eviction of his tenant has been dismissed by the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. The tenant who is the respondent here took the premises on lease for the purpose of carrying on business in wine. On the introduction of prohibition into the Madras State the carrying on of this business became illegal with the result that from 1st October, 1948, the tenant ceased to do that business. This application was filed on 10th May, 1949, and the ground for eviction was that the tenant “had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without a reasonable cause.” There was no dispute that the tenant, notwithstanding that he did not carry on his wine business was regularly paying rent due in respect of the property.

The Rent Controller acceded to the petition of the landlord and ordered eviction. The tenant filed an appeal to the appellate authority under section 13 of the Act and the appeal was allowed and the order of eviction vacated. It is from this order that the present revision has been brought.

The ground upon which the eviction is sought is under section 7(2)(v) of the Act which runs thus:

“that where the building is situated in a place other than a hill-station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause.”

The appellate authority has found that neither of the conditions of the section, namely, (1) that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building and (2) that there was no reasonable cause for the same, were satisfied. It is unnecessary to go into all the reasons given by the learned appellate authority since I am satisfied that the one ground given, viz-, that the tenant has not ceased to occupy the building is sufficient to dispose of the case. He has found, and it is not disputed, that the tenant had left furniture in the premises and was thus “occupying” it. The Act does not require that the tenant should carry on the business in order to prevent eviction. It is sufficient if he occupies it. Keeping his furniture in the premises is sufficient occupation, in my opinion, within the meaning of section 7(2)(v). In this view the other questions raised need not be discussed.

The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

R.M. ----- Petition dismissed.