MURLIDHER RAO, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this matter is listed for orders today, I have heard learned advocates for final disposal. ( 2 ) THIS petition is filed by the owners who have obtained an eviction decree in H R. C. No. 185/1972. Petitioners are brothers. In the said proceedings, parties entered into a compromise on 16-7-1975, and in terms of the said compromise, a decree was passed. Thereafter, the tenant filed civil suit and obtained temporary injunction restraining the owners from obtaining possession. On 25-11-1977, after the injunction was dissolved, the landlords executed the decree and obtained possession on 27-11 -1977. The tenant- petitioner has filed this petition on 25-11-1978, complaining that the landlords after obtaining possession have failed to occupy the premises and therefore he may be permitted to re-enter the permises under Sec. 25 of the Rent control Act. The case of the landlords was that they have been in possession of the premises and one of their friends is residing there. The court appointed a commissioner who inspected the spot and found that opponent-4 was occupying the premises. When enquired, opponent-4 admitted that he was a friend of the landlords who had permitted him to occupy. The commissioner had reported that opponent-4 was using the kitchen room in the first floor and he found certain utensils. Prima facie this report establishes that opponent-4 was a friend of the landlords who has occupied the premises. The case put forward by the tenant who sought re-entry under Sec. 25 was that the landlords after obtaining possession, have not occupied the premises but leased it to opponent-4. There is no evidence to substantiate this ground nor opponent-4 admits that he was permitted to occupy the premises as a tenant. In the absence of any evidence it is not possible to accept that opponent-4 was in possession of the premises, as a tenant. ( 3 ) THE courts below have held that the landlords have not occupied the premises, in the sense, they are not actually living in the premises making use of the same. The courts below have held that the landlords after obtaining possession, have kept a portion of the premises under lock and they have allowed respondent-4 to occupy some portion. According to court below, the landlords have not occupied the premises, as such, the tenant has a right of re-entry. ( 4 ) MR. The courts below have held that the landlords after obtaining possession, have kept a portion of the premises under lock and they have allowed respondent-4 to occupy some portion. According to court below, the landlords have not occupied the premises, as such, the tenant has a right of re-entry. ( 4 ) MR. Jayaprakash appearing for the owners submitted that the landlords constitute a joint family. Out of three petitioners, petitioner-2 who was a doctor was in United States. This house was meant for petitioner-2 who was to come back to this Countly and start nursing home. However it was maintained by Mr. Jayaprakash that PW-1 has clearly stated that after obtaining possession, the premises is under their control. It was contended by Mr. Jayaprakash that in such circumstances, the word 'occupation' must receive the same interpretation as is explained by the Supreme court in Babusingh Chawhan v Rajkumari jain ( AIR 1982 SC 810 ) and simla Devi v First Additional District judge ( AIR 1984 SC 1376 ). In Babusingh's case the Court observed thus :". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSSESSION by a landlord of his property may assume various forms. A landlord may be serving outside while retaining his possession over a property or a part of the property by either leaving household effects or things locked up in the premises. Such an occupation also would be full and complete possession in the eye of law". Reiterating the view the Court in bimla Devi's case after refering to Corpus juris Secundum, held thus :"this Court in the observations extracted above has clearly pointed out that 'possession' or "occupation" may take various forms and it was expressly held that even keeping the household effects by the owner is an act of occupation. It is therefore, manifestly clear that even if a landlord is serving outside or living with his near relations but makes casual visits to his house and thus retains control over the entire or a portion of the property, he would in law be deemed to be in occupation of the same. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (emphasis supplied) ( 5 ) REJECTING the contention that physical possession is the ingredient of "occupation", the court held that"if the broad argument put forward is to be accepted then that would destroy the very concept of constructive or actual possession or occupation". ( 6 ) IT has to be held that the words ''not occupied" in Sec. 25 must receive like interpretation. Therefore it is not necessary that the landlord should be in 'physical possession'. If the premises are under his control and a servant is kept to watch the premises, such an occupation would be full and complete possession, in the eye of law. In the instant case, the eviction decree is obtained by all the three brothers who are the members of joint family. Two of the brothers are in occupation of the premises on behalf of the joint family. The premises are under their control. They have permitted respondent-4, their friend, to stay in the premises. There is no proof of lease in favour of respondent-4. It has not been re-let to him. His enjoyment and permissive possession must be construed as occupation by landlords who have inducted him as their guest. ( 7 ) IT is not uncommon many families maintain a portion of their building as 'guest room' and those who are affluent, have a separate guest house. It is to facilitate their frequently coming guests. In such a case it cannot be said that the portion earmarked as 'guest room' or 'guest house' is not occupied by landlord. The principle intended under Sec. 25 is to avoid fraudulent eviction of the tenant. If there is no frudulent intention; as in this case it is not, re-entry by ex-tenant is impermissible. My view finds support from a decision in K. P. Sadashiviah v. K. G. Shashikumar (CRP No. 7857 /1982, decided on 30-7-1986 ). Hence the findings of the courts below are set aside ; this C. R. P. is allowed. Petition filed under Sec. 25 of the Act by the tenant-respondent, is dismissed. No costs. Petition is Allowed --- *** --- .