ALEX Vs. MARY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord of a building consisting of a room is the petitioner herein aggrieved by the rejection of the plea for eviction on the ground of cessation of occupation by the tenant, namely under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The Rent Control Court initially dismissed the petition which was taken in appeal by the landlord and the appeal was allowed directing the tenant to vacate the premises. Thereafter, in revision filed before this Court as R.C.R. No.422/2004, this Court set aside the said order and directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter and thereafter the appeal has been disposed of by the impugned judgment in favour of the tenant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted by relying upon various judgments of this Court that the evidence in this case is sufficient to attract the ground under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. It is submitted that, even if direct evidence is lacking to establish cessation of occupation for a few days, this Court can easily presume the same set of circumstances and can draw a presumption backwards to cover the statutory period of six months. By inviting our attention to various aspects, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the counter statement filed by the tenant, there is an explanation that because of the illness of the original tenant, the shop was not opened for some days but, they could not prove by producing the muster roll or other registers that they have been doing business for the crucial period.