TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f which is under challenge in this revision. The tenanted premises was let out to the respondent on 30-01 81 o(sic) a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. Landlord has provided electric connection to the shop room. As per the terms of the rent deed the tenant has to pay rent on the first of every month and also to pay the electricity charges. Rent was kept in arrears, so also the electricity charges to the Board. Due to the non-user of the premises the value and utility of the building was also reduced materially and permanently. Further due to the failure to pay electricity charges the Electricity Board disconnected the supply of electricity and later dismantled the equipments. Landlord had also filed OS. 90/96 for recovery of rent. Later the Kerala ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt opening of the shop or the mere presence of the tenant in the premises would not show that the tenant is using the premises. To resolve the controversy it is necessary to examine the scope of section 11(4)(v). The provision is extracted below for easy reference. (4) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, XX XX XX XX (v) if the tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. The word "occupy" occurring in section 11(4)(v) has got different meaning in different context. The meaning of the word "occupy" in the context of section 11(4) (v) has to be understood in the light of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loyees. The Division Bench of this Court of which one of us is a party (Radhakrishnan, J.), in Rajagopalan v. Gopalan. 2004(1) KLT Short Notes page 54 interpreting section 11(4)(v) took the view that occupation in the content of Section 11(4) means only physical occupation, which requires further explanation. Occupation in the context of section 11(4)(v) means actual user. If the landlord could establish that in a given case even if the tenant is in physical possession of the premises, the premises is not being used, that is a good ground for eviction under section 11(4)(v) of the Act. Section 11(4) uses the words "put the landlord in possession" and not "occupation", but 11(4)(v) uses the words "the tenant ceases to occupy". In section 11(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Most of the rent control legislations, in force in different States, expect the tenant to occupy the tenancy premises. If he himself ceases to occupy and parts, with possession in favour of someone else, it provides a ground for eviction. Similarly, some legislations provide it as a ground of eviction if the tenant has just ceased to occupy the tenancy premises though he may have continued to retain possession thereof. The scheme of the Haryana Act is also to insist on the tenant remaining in occupation of the premises. Consistently with what has been mutually agreed upon, the tenant is expected to make useful use of the property and subject the tenancy premises to any permissible and useful activity by actually ' being there. To the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccupy, it is for the tenant to establish that he is using the premises by adducing evidence of its user. The mere presence in the premises or the intermittent Opening of the tenanted premises may not suffice. If the tenant is not using the premises he can show reasonable cause. We may indicate so far as this case is concerned the landlord has categorically stated in the petition that the tenant is not using the premises. Landlord has pointed out that electricity was disconnected and later dismantled. Landlord was examined as PW.2 to establish the said fact. PW2, Electrical Engineer has specifically stated that current charges with respect to consumer No. 3325 is in arrears upto September 1987 and is in disconnection from October 1987 and th....