Res judicata and non-occupation under rent control law: later petition maintained, eviction justified for six months' cessation.

A later rent control petition based on a fresh period of alleged non-occupation was not barred by res judicata because it rested on a distinct factual foundation from the earlier proceedings, and the petitions were maintainable. For eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, actual non-occupation for six months must be shown; once the landlord proves cessation of occupation, the tenant must establish a legally sufficient reasonable cause. On the facts stated, the tenant failed to produce material showing continued use of the premises, and financial difficulty or sick-industry proceedings alone did not amount to reasonable cause, so eviction was justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second set of rent control petitions was barred by res judicata. (ii) Whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Issue (i): Whether the second set of rent control petitions was barred by res judicata.

Analysis: The earlier proceedings related to a different period of alleged non-occupation, while the later petitions were founded on a fresh and distinct cause of action arising from alleged cessation of occupation from September 2001 onwards. The earlier finding could not operate as a bar where the subsequent petitions rested on a different factual foundation and a different period of default.

Conclusion: The plea of res judicata failed and the petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Analysis: The ground under Section 11(4)(v) requires proof of actual non-occupation for the statutory period, not merely retention of legal possession. Once the landlord shows cessation of occupation, the burden shifts to the tenant to establish reasonable cause. On the evidence, the tenant failed to produce material showing business activity, staff attendance, wage records, electricity bills, or other proof of continued use of the premises. Financial difficulty and proceedings under the sick industrial company law, without cogent evidence that such difficulty prevented occupation of the premises, were insufficient to constitute reasonable cause.

Conclusion: The tenant had ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months without reasonable cause, and eviction was justified.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of eviction were upheld because the later petitions were not barred and the statutory ground of cessation of occupation without reasonable cause was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: For eviction under Section 11(4)(v), the landlord must prove cessation of actual occupation for six months, after which the tenant must establish a legally sufficient reasonable cause; a subsequent petition based on a later and distinct period of non-occupation is not barred by res judicata.

---