Cessation of occupation under rent control law shifts the burden to the tenant and limits revisional interference with facts.

Cessation of occupation for the statutory period was held to attract eviction where the landlord proved prima facie that the tenant had not actually occupied the shop and had offered no reasonable cause. Actual occupation was treated as more than juridical possession, requiring real presence and user consistent with the tenancy. Once evidence of closure, lack of electricity use, failed service, and supporting photographs and testimony was shown, the burden shifted to the tenant to rebut the case. The Supreme Court also held that the High Court, in revision, could not reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings on a misreading of the record, and the eviction order was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause so as to attract eviction under the rent control statute; whether the High Court, in revision, was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Controller and the Appellate Authority.

Analysis: The statutory ground of eviction under Section 13(2)(v) is attracted when the landlord establishes that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for the requisite period without reasonable cause. Occupation, for this purpose, is distinct from bare juridical possession and requires actual presence and user consistent with the tenancy. Once the landlord adduced evidence showing closure of the shop, absence of electricity consumption, repeated unserved notices, unsuccessful attempts at service, and supporting photographic and oral evidence, the burden shifted to the tenant to rebut the case or establish reasonable cause for non-occupation. The Controller and the Appellate Authority evaluated the evidence and returned concurrent findings against the tenant. The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, reappreciated evidence and proceeded on misread assumptions, which was impermissible.

Conclusion: The tenant had ceased to occupy the premises without reasonable cause, and the High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings. The conclusion is in favour of the landlord-appellant.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order was restored and the tenant was directed to deliver possession of the shop to the landlord.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for eviction on the ground of cessation of occupation, once the landlord establishes prima facie non-occupation for the statutory period, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove reasonable cause, and a revisional court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact by reappreciating evidence or proceeding on misreading of the record.

---