Radhakrishnan, J.

It is necessary that the tenant should abandon the building so as to attract Sec. 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 Sec. 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 not cessation of occupation by abandonment and hence Sec. 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 P.W.1. Commission was taken out and the commissioner was examined as P.W.2. P.W.3 was a former tenant.

4. Tenant resisted the petition contenting that there is no cessation of occupation. He was working as Confidential Assistant in the judicial department and after retirement he was working in various inquiry commissions and advocates office. Though he got married on 17.1.1988 he continued to stay in the tenanted premises and was going home only occasionally. From 19.11.1987 respondent had worked as Confidential Assistant in various Commissions of Inquiry. Since March 1994 he is conducting job typing work in the scheduled premises and therefore there is no cessation of occupation of the tenanted premises. In order to establish the case tenant got himself examined as R.W.1. R.Ws 2 and 3 were also examined on his side and Exts.B1 to B4 documents were produced.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent Sri. S. Sreekumar tried to support the judgment of the Appellate Authority and submitted that this is not a fit case warranting interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction. Respondent-tenant is occupying the tenanted premises from 1977 onwards. He retired from service on 31.5.1987. Landlord had earlier filed R.C.P.No.178 of 1983 under Sec. 11(3) of the and that was dismissed. Though the matter was taken up in appeal and revision, landlord could not succeed. Earlier rent control petition was filed under Sec. 11(3) which, in our view, has no relevance when a plea under Sec. 11(4) (v) is adjudicated. Landlord has to establish that tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition and it is for the tenant to show that there is no cessation of occupation continuously for a period of six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition and even if there is cessation of occupation, tenant could establish that there is reasonable cause for the same.

6. We may first examine as to whether landlord has succeeded in establishing that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for a period of six months prior to the date of filing of the rent control petition. Landlord was examined as P.W.1. Landlords case is that after the marriage in the year 1990 tenant never used to reside in the lodging house and that he has settled down at his native place at Annamanada. Landlord apart from his oral evidence has examined P.W.3. P.W.3 is a teacher and was formerly a tenant in one of the rooms in the scheduled building. P.W.3 deposed that the tenant was not seen upto December 1993. He further deposed that four or five years prior to December 1993 tenant was not seen in the petition scheduled building and it was seen locked. Landlord also took out a commission and the commissioner submitted Ext.C1 report. Commissioner reported that the room is in a dilapidated condition due to non user. The room was locked and the commission could watch the condition of the room through the window on the western side. With regard to the period of non user Commissioner reported that the room has not been used for a long time approximately three or four years. The room was found to be dusty and webs were seen everywhere. Few of the items found in the room were also noticed by the commissioner. The commissioner gave oral evidence in support of his report when he was examined as P.W.2. The landlord, in our view, has proved cessation of occupation of the premises continuously for a period of six months prior to the filing of the petition.

7. The onus has now shifted to the tenant to disprove that. The tenant has produced Ext. B4 certificate which would show that he had worked from 20.8.1992 to 24.4.1994 on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,948/-. Certificate, in our view, would only show that he was working as Confidential Assistant from 20.8.1992 to 24.4.1994. Ext.B2 is the certificate issued by N. Sukumaran who was heading another commission of inquiry. It would show that he was working as Confidential Assistant from 5.4.1989 to 30.6.1990. Those certificates would only show that he was working as Confidential Assistant and not whether the tenant was using the lodging house. But the question to be decided is not whether he had worked in these Commissions of Inquiry. The question to be decided is whether he has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises continuously for six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition.

8. Counsel for the tenant submitted that the oral evidence adduced by P.W.3 cannot be believed since he is an interested witness. Counsel also submitted that the courts below rightly accepted the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3.

9. We have already indicated that the documents produced by the tenant would not show that he was in occupation of the premises. Ext. B1 is certificate dated 30.6.1988, Ext.B2 30.6.1988, Ext. B3 24.4.1994 and Ext.B4 10.4.1992. We are of the view, these documents would only indicate that he was working as Confidential Assistant in various Inquiry Commissioners. Apart from the interested testimony of R.W.1, tenant has also examined R.W.2 to show that he was occupying the premises. R.W.2 is none other than a colleague who was working with him in the Commission and he is an interested witness. He started that he had visited the premises. R.W.3 is a flower merchant. He is conducting business in the ground floor of the scheduled building. His evidence is also highly interested. The mere fact that R.Ws 2 and 3 have deposed that the tenanted premises was not seen closed does not mean that the tenant has occupied the premises continuously prior to the filing of the petition. The tenant has not produced any evidence to show that he has been paying rent regularly. He could have obtained the rent receipts. As per Sec. 9 of the tenant who makes payment on account of rent or advance shall be entitled to obtain a receipt in the prescribed form for the amount paid. There is no case for the tenant that he was paying rent regularly. If that is the case of the tenant, he could have obtained receipts which would show that he was staying in the tenanted premises. Further commission report is also very crucial. Commissioner inspected the premises on 4.1.1996 and the room was found locked. Commissioner reported that he tried to ascertain the condition of the room through the window on the western side. Commissioner has opined that the room was in a dilapidated condition because of non user. He has stated that the room was found with webs everywhere. Appellate Authority tried to make out a case that the calendar noticed by the commissioner is of the year 1986. We are of the view there is no reason to discard the commission report. Commission report, the evidence given by the commissioner as P.W.3 and the oral evidence of P.Ws1 and 2 would positively show that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition.

10. We are of he view Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority have committed a grave error in taking the view that only if there is abandonment it could be said that there would be cessation of occupation. Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority used words which are not in the statute. Statute has not used the word abandonment. The word abandon means to give up, to desert etc. Tenant need not abandon the building so as to attract Sec. 11 (4) (v) of the. Landlord is also not expected to establish that tenant has abandoned the building so as to attract Sec. 11 (4)(v). Once landlord could establish that tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months prior to the filing of the petition he is entitled to get order of eviction under that section. The word occupation must be understood to be not mere physical possession. Tenant should use the building. The word occupy means to cohabit with, to hold or have in possession. Tenanted premises must be in the state of being enjoyed and occupied. The word occupy used by the statute would show that tenanted premises be put to use. Tenant cannot be heard to contend that he is having physical possession of the premises though not in occupation. So far as this case is concerned, we are of the view landlord has discharged the burden and then the onus has shifted to the tenant and the tenant could not establish that he has not ceased to occupy the premises and even if there is cessation that was with reasonable cause.

11. Counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that this court is not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below in our revisional jurisdiction. The question whether High Court has jurisdiction to go into the legality or correctness of the decision was considered by the apex court in Pareed Kaka v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb (2004 (2) KLT 130 [LQ/SC/2004/408] ). Apex court was dealing with Sec. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Sec.50 gives power to the High Court to call for and examine any order passed or proceeding taken by the court of Small Causes or the Court of Civil Judge under the for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of such order or proceeding and may pass such orders as it thinks fit. The apex court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to go into the legality or correctness of the decision which includes the power to reappreciate evidence and it can interfere with the findings of fact also. It is not as if this court cannot reappreciate the evidence though the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority are concurrent. So far as this case is concerned, we have already indicated that both the courts below have proceeded on the basis since there was no abandonment of the tenanted premises Sec. 11(4) (v) would not apply and dismissed the petition, which, in our view, is a fundamental error which vitiates the entire proceedings. Both the courts below appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on a wrong premise applying wrong legal principle. In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow this revision and set aside the orders passed by the courts below. We hold that landlord is entitled to get eviction under Sec. 11(4) (v) of the.