Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, J. Additional Rent Controller,. Kottayam allowed the petition filed by the respondent-landlord claiming eviction under S.11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. That has been confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam. Revision Petitioners challenge the concurrent findings of the authorities below mainly on the ground that the burden is squarely upon the respondent-landlord to establish his case under S.11(4) (v) of the Act. 2. Under S.11(4)(v) of the Act it is open to the landlord to claim eviction, if the tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. It is precisely on this ground that the petition was filed by the respondent-landlord. Relying on Cherian v. Jose (1980 KLT 661) learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the burden is entirely upon the landlord to establish that the tenant ceased to occupy the building without reasonable cause. In the cited decision, Janaki Amina, J. held that the landlord in order to succeed under S.11(4)(v) of the Act should establish that the tenant did not occupy the building for the period mentioned without reasonable cause. 3. In a case where there is evidence that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months prior to the petition without reasonable cause, the onus of proof shifts to the tenant to show that non-occupation was with reasonable cause. In a case where the tenant establishes reasonable cause for non-occupation of the building continuously for six months, the landlord would not be entitled to claim eviction under S.11(4)(v). But in a case where the landlord has established that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building as postulated under S.11(4)(v) the latter has to vindicate his position by espousing reasonable cause. In such a circumstance it is only the tenant who can set forth the grounds to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller as to what motivated him not to occupy the building continuously for six months. What reasons impelled the tenant for not occupying the building are best known to him only. It is for him to establish reasonable cause for non-occupation before the Rent Controller. Thus, in a case where there is evidence that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months, it is for him to show reasonable cause for doing so. It is for him to establish reasonable cause for non-occupation before the Rent Controller. Thus, in a case where there is evidence that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months, it is for him to show reasonable cause for doing so. To defeat the claim of the landlord under S.11(4)(v) tenant cannot advance the contention that the burden is always upon the landlord to establish reasonable cause for his non-occupation. 4. In the cited case, there was evidence that the original tenant attempted to take steps for starting a stationery trade in the building that he could not do so as he died and that thereafter his legal representatives were taking steps for furnishing the building and making alterations thereto. In view of that evidence, it was held in the above decision that the landlord is not entitled to get eviction under S.11(4)(v) of the Act. 5. There is ample evidence in the case that the revision petitioners ceased to occupy the building during the period mentioned under S.11(4)(v). P.W.3, next door neighbour of the petition schedule building testified before the Rent Controller in support of the respondent. P.W.3 stated that the revision petitioners were not doing any business in the petition schedule building ever since 1989. Nothing was brought out to discredit the testimony of P.W.3. PW.3's evidence gets ample support from the commissioner's report. Commissioner examined as P.W.2 stated that on his visit he found the premises full of dirt on the floor. He noticed that no sweeping was done in the petition schedule building for months together. He also found cob-webs in the building. Certainly it indicated that the building was not being put to use by the revision petitioners for several months. The Rent Control Appellate Authority on consideration of the evidence rightly agreed with the findings entered by the Rent Controller. From the evidence in the case no other conclusion is possible. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and hence the same is dismissed.