9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding is situated in a place other than a hill-station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. 3 . The tenant in this case is a widow and it Is not in dispute that she and her husband occupied the house in suit at Hissar, during the lifetime of her husband who was stationed at that place as an E.A.C. Otherwise, she has no connection with Hissar. The landlord alleged that after the death of her husband, the tenant had ceased to reside in the premises and gone to live at Delhi, where her husband's brother was living and also her married daughter and where her two unmarried daughters were receiving education. It was alleged that she had in fact ceased to reside in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iefly relied on two cases, Messrs Abdul Rahim and Bros. and Anr. v. R.K. Selvan Bros. and Ors. (1956) I. Mad. L.J. 237, and Langford Property Company, Ltd. v. Athanassoglou and Anr. (1948) All. E.R. 722. 6. The first of these cases refers to business premises taken on lease by the tenant for the purpose of carrying on the business of selling liquor, and when prohibition was introduced into the State of Madras, the tenant became unable to carry on his business though he continued to keep his furniture in the premises. In these peculiar circumstances, Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. held that the Act did not require that the tenant in occupation of a non-residential building should carry on actual business in the premises in order to prevent evic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi, only visiting Hissar, very occasionally for short periods and even then not using the house in the sense of sleeping there. I am of the opinion that the mere presence of furniture and willingness to pay rent does not constitute occupation within the meaning of Section 13(2)(v). This view was also expressed by Harnam Singh, J. in Baij Nath v. Badhawa Singh I.L.R. 1956 P H 421 : 1956 P.L.R. 236. The learned Judge held that although occupation includes possession as its primary element it also includes something more and the owner of a vacant house who as long as leaves it vacant is not in occupation. The fact that 'occupation' means occupation in the sense of actual user appears to be clear from the words of Section 13(2)(v), sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
