Constructive occupation under rent control includes control and possession, and accrued release rights survive later amendment absent retrospective intent.

Occupation under the rent control provision extends beyond physical residence and includes constructive possession and control, so retaining locked premises, keeping effects there, or making occasional visits can satisfy the landlord's statutory requirement. The later deletion of Explanation (iv) was treated as affecting substantive rights only prospectively because no clear retrospective intent appeared in the amending statute; accordingly, the landlord's accrued right to seek release of the retained premises survived the amendment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a landlord is in occupation of retained premises within Explanation (iv) to Section 21(1)(b) when he retains control of the portion though not residing there physically; (ii) whether deletion of Explanation (iv) by the 1976 amendment operated retrospectively so as to defeat the accrued right of release.

Issue (i): whether a landlord is in occupation of retained premises within Explanation (iv) to Section 21(1)(b) when he retains control of the portion though not residing there physically.

Analysis: The expression "occupation" was treated as extending beyond actual physical residence and as including possession and control. Retaining household effects, keeping the premises locked, making casual visits, or otherwise maintaining dominion over the retained portion was held sufficient to amount to occupation in law. The tenant could not insist that the landlord must personally reside in the premises in a particular manner to attract the statutory benefit.

Conclusion: The landlord was in occupation of the retained portion within the meaning of Explanation (iv), and the requirement of the provision was satisfied.

Issue (ii): whether deletion of Explanation (iv) by the 1976 amendment operated retrospectively so as to defeat the accrued right of release.

Analysis: Explanation (iv) was held to confer a substantive right on the landlord where he occupied part of the building and sought release of the remainder. The later omission of the Explanation was treated as an amendment affecting substantive rights, and no express or necessary retrospective intent was found in the amending statute. The accrued right to seek ejectment therefore survived the deletion.

Conclusion: The amendment did not operate retrospectively, and the landlord's vested right under Explanation (iv) was not taken away.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the statutory protection in favour of the landlord under Explanation (iv) applied and remained unaffected by the subsequent amendment, entitling release of the premises in the landlord's favour.

Ratio Decidendi: Occupation under the rent control provision includes constructive possession and control, and a statutory benefit creating a substantive accrued right is not taken away by a later amendment unless retrospective operation is clearly expressed or necessarily implied.

---