Actual occupation of rented premises requires real user; occasional visits and stored furniture do not preserve tenancy protection.

A tenant ceases to "occupy" premises for purposes of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act when actual user stops and only occasional brief visits continue. Shifting residence to another city, without sleeping in the building, is inconsistent with occupation; the presence of furniture and an expressed willingness to pay rent do not by themselves amount to continued occupation. The statutory reference to hill-station houses also supports the view that mere retention of belongings is insufficient. On these facts, cessation of occupation for the required continuous period without reasonable cause was established, and the ejectment ground was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 13(2)(v) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Analysis: The tenant had shifted to Delhi and only made occasional brief visits to Hissar, without sleeping in the premises. The presence of furniture and willingness to pay rent did not amount to occupation. The word "occupation" in the provision contemplates actual user, and the statutory exemption for hill-station houses showed that mere retention of furniture was not enough to keep a premises occupied.

Conclusion: The tenant had ceased to occupy the house without reasonable cause, and the ground for ejectment was made out.

---