Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause so as to attract eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Analysis: Continuous physical absence from the demised premises for six months raises a presumption of cessation of occupation and abandonment. To rebut that presumption, the tenant must establish not merely an intention to return, but de facto intention to possess the premises for the purpose for which they were let, supported by some outward manifestation of such possession. Mere occasional cleaning of the room did not amount to occupation or show retention of possession in fact. The tenant also failed to prove any reasonable cause for the prolonged non-occupation.
Conclusion: The tenant failed to displace the presumption of cessation of occupation and failed to prove reasonable cause; eviction was therefore warranted.
Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected because the statutory ground of continuous non-occupation was established.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 11(4)(v), continuous physical absence for six months creates a presumption of cessation of occupation, and it can be rebutted only by proof of de facto possession supported by outward indicia and reasonable cause for the absence.