https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165181 A later rent control petition based on a fresh period of alleged non-occupation was not barred by res judicata because it rested on a distinct factual foundation from the earlier proceedings, and the petitions were maintainable. For eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, actual non-occupation for six months must be shown; once the landlord proves cessation of occupation, the tenant must establish a legally sufficient reasonable cause. On the facts stated, the tenant failed to produce material showing continued use of the premises, and financial difficulty or sick-industry proceedings alone did not amount to reasonable cause, so eviction was justified. en-us Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165181 A later rent control petition based on a fresh period of alleged non-occupation was not barred by res judicata because it rested on a distinct factual foundation from the earlier proceedings, and the petitions were maintainable. For eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, actual non-occupation for six months must be shown; once the landlord proves cessation of occupation, the tenant must establish a legally sufficient reasonable cause. On the facts stated, the tenant failed to produce material showing continued use of the premises, and financial difficulty or sick-industry proceedings alone did not amount to reasonable cause, so eviction was justified. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165181