KURIAN THOMAS Vs. N SREEDHARAN MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is it necessary that the tenant should abandon the building so as to attract S.11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) Rent Control Court concluded that mere cessation of occupation is not sufficient to attract S.11(4)(v), but there must be an abandonment of the building. Rent Control Court held that since tenant has not abandoned the building and continued to pay rent, there is no cessation of occupation by abandonment and hence S.11(4)(v) would not be attracted. The order of the Rent Control Court was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Hence this revision petition by the landlord.

(3.) Petition schedule building was rented out to the respondent tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- in the year 1972 for lodging purposes. Respondent was a stenographer in the judicial department and he retired from service in the year 1986. According to the landlord, after retirement tenant continued to occupy the room for a period of two years. Later in the year 1990 he got married and shifted his residence to Annamanada, his native place. Tenant therefore ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months prior to the date of filing of the petition. In order to establish the case, landlord was examined as PW.1. Commission was taken out and the commission was examined as PW.2. PW.3 was a former tenant.