https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286860 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. en-us Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:46:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286860 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286860