1978 (3) TMI 216 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the tenant can be considered to be occupying the premises despite physical absence for six months.
2. Interpretation of Section 11(4)(v) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 regarding eviction on grounds of continuous non-occupation for six months without reasonable cause.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The revision petitioner, who had multiple vegetable shops, surrendered possession of all rooms except one. The landlord sought eviction, alleging non-occupation for six months without reasonable cause. The courts found the petitioner failed to prove illness or obstruction by the landlord. The petitioner argued for occupation based on intention, citing legal precedents like Wigley v. Leigh. The court discussed the concept of animus possidendi and corpus possessionis, emphasizing visible possession or intention to possess. The court stated that physical absence for six months raises a presumption of abandonment, shifting the burden to the tenant to prove actual possession. The petitioner's claim of occasional cleaning did not establish occupation, leading to dismissal.

Issue 2:
Section 11(4)(v) of the Act allows eviction if a tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. The law recognizes intermittent absence but presumes abandonment after six months. The tenant must prove de facto intention to possess and show outward expressions of possession. The burden of proving "reasonable cause" for non-occupation lies with the tenant, requiring a cause that demonstrates retention of possession despite physical absence. In this case, the petitioner failed to provide a reasonable cause for non-occupation, leading to the court's decision to dismiss the case without costs.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of proving actual possession and intention to possess in cases of continuous non-occupation. It clarifies the legal principles regarding eviction due to abandonment under the relevant statutory provisions, emphasizing the burden on the tenant to establish a reasonable cause for absence to retain possession rights.