Actual user required for occupation under rent control law; long disuse proved eviction was sustainable.

The expression "occupy" under section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 was construed to mean actual user of the premises, not mere physical presence or nominal possession. The landlord was required to make a prima facie case that the building had not been used continuously for the statutory period, after which the burden shifted to the tenant to show user or reasonable cause. On the evidence of disconnection and dismantling of electricity supply, repeated commission visits showing the shop locked, and the tenant's failure to produce independent evidence, the premises were found unused for more than six months, and eviction was sustained.

---

---

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

Analysis: The expression "occupy" in section 11(4)(v) was construed in the context of the rent control legislation as requiring actual user of the premises and not mere physical presence or nominal possession. The landlord had to establish prima facie that the building had not been used continuously for the statutory period, after which the burden shifted to the tenant to show user or reasonable cause. On the evidence, including disconnection and dismantling of electricity supply, repeated commission visits showing the shop locked, and absence of independent evidence from the tenant, the building was found to have remained unused for more than six months.

Conclusion: The tenant had ceased to occupy the premises within the meaning of section 11(4)(v), and eviction was sustainable.

---