9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Tenant ceased to occupy the building for more than six months without reasonable cause. 2. Burden of proof on the tenant to show occupation. 3. Interpretation of the term "occupation" in the context of the Act. Analysis: 1. The tenant faced eviction under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act for allegedly not occupying the building for over six months. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found in favor of the landlord based on evidence that the building remained closed for an extended period. The tenant challenged this order through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The tenant argued that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on him to show occupation. The court clarified that while the burden is on the landlord to prove non-occupation for six months, if the evidence suggests otherwise, the burden shifts to the tenant to provide a reasonable cause for non-occupation. 3. The term "occupation" was analyzed in the context of the Act. The court emphasized that possession does not equate to occupation, and occupation requires actual physical use of the building by the tenant or their agents. The court referred to previous judgments to support the interpretation that continuous absence for six months raises a presumption of cessation of occupation, placing the onus on the tenant to rebut this presumption. 4. The court rejected the tenant's arguments based on the interpretation of the term "ceases to occupy" from other judgments, emphasizing that the specific context of the Kerala Act governs the understanding of this term. The court upheld the lower authorities' findings and dismissed the petition, concluding that the contentions raised were insufficient to warrant interference with the eviction order.
|
