Actual occupation under rent control law requires physical use; mere legal possession or articles left inside will not defeat eviction.

Under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, occupation means actual physical use of the building by the tenant or through agents or employees, not mere legal possession. Where evidence shows absence for the statutory period, the court may draw a presumption of six months' non-occupation, which the tenant must rebut by showing reasonable cause. The Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority relied on the commissioner's evidence and supporting testimony to find cessation of occupation, and that factual finding was not shown to be perverse. Interference was therefore unwarranted and the eviction order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding that the tenant ceased to occupy the building for six months under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 could be interfered with, and whether mere legal possession or the presence of some articles in the premises was sufficient to negate cessation of occupation.

Analysis: The factual finding of non-occupation was based on evidence accepted by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, including the commissioner's testimony and supporting witnesses. The absence of prior notice for the second inspection did not vitiate the commissioner's evidence when he was examined in court and deposed to what he observed. The statutory ground requires proof that the tenant ceased to occupy the building, and although the landlord bears the initial burden, the court may draw a presumption of continued non-occupation from evidence showing absence close to the statutory period. The expression 'occupation' in this context means actual physical use of the building by the tenant or through agents or employees, and is not satisfied by bare legal possession. The tenant therefore could not displace the presumption merely by pointing to possession or the presence of utensils.

Conclusion: The challenge to the eviction order failed, and the finding of cessation of occupation was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference under Article 227, and the eviction order sustained by the authorities remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, 'occupation' means actual physical use of the building, and once evidence permits a presumption of six months' non-occupation, the tenant must rebut it by showing reasonable cause; mere legal possession is insufficient.

---