ORDER : Shircy V., J. The revision petitioner is the first respondent/tenant in R.C.P. No.70/2013 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Vadakara. Respondents 1 to 10 are the landlords of the tenanted premises. Respondents 1 to 5 have filed the rent control petition for eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) as well under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. The said order was challenged by the tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction of the Rent Controller. This revision petition is filed challenging the legality, regularity and propriety of the order of the Appellate Authority. 2. It is fairly admitted by the landlords that there is no arrears of rent as such and hence eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act does not arise for consideration 3. The tenanted premises is a room in a two storied building. Admittedly, the tenanted premises including the buildings nearby were owned by one Sarala. Sarala is none other than the mother of the tenant. The tenant had taken the tenanted premises from her on rent. While he was continuing as the tenant, the tenanted premises along with other buildings were assigned by Sarala in favour of the landlords and to one Muhammed Haroon. Thereafter on 1.6.2013 Muhammed Haroon sold his right to the 5th respondent by executing sale deed No. 984/2012. According to the Landlords/respondents the tenant had closed down his business premises and ceased to occupy the same for more than six months without any reasonable cause and hence eviction was sought for under Section 11 (4) ( v) of the Act after issuance of joint notice by them. The tenant had contended that actually the respondents herein are not the landlords of the building as they have not derived title over the building. According to him he is running a hawker shop in the tenanted premises. It is to be noted that the learned Rent Controller found that the denial of title of the landlords by the tenant was not bona fide and so, proceeded with trial of the case and ordered eviction of the premises. The said finding was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. It is to be noted that the learned Rent Controller found that the denial of title of the landlords by the tenant was not bona fide and so, proceeded with trial of the case and ordered eviction of the premises. The said finding was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. It is well settled that mere denial of landlord tenant relationship is not enough to exclude from the purview of the Rent control court and only if there is bona fide denial of title, the Rent Controller has to look into the validity of the claim and record a finding that the denial is bona fide. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the tenant that the title of the respondents is under challenge in Execution Petition No. 62/2008 filed by him as there was failure on the part of his mother in complying with the settlement entered between him and his mother in another suit claiming share in her property and E.F.A. No. 41/2004 is pending before this Court against the order in the Execution Petition. The Rent control court and the Appellate Authority found that the denial of title raised by the tenant is not bona fide. Under Section 20 of the Act the power of the revisional court is very limited and only if the order is illegal, irregular or improper the revisional court has power to interfere. It is pertinent to note that as the landlords had filed petition for eviction on the ground of cessation, the initial burden is upon them to substantiate the same. A commissioner was taken out in this matter to report about the present stage of the tenanted premises. The Commissioner had reported that the tenanted premises was found locked at the time of his inspection and lock was found rusted and the verandah of the premises was seen with fungus and covered with dust. It was also reported that small plants and shrubs were grown there and the surroundings were kept unclean and the appearance would show that it was not opened for more than a period of one year. The commissioner was also examined before the Rent Control Court as CW1. It was also reported that small plants and shrubs were grown there and the surroundings were kept unclean and the appearance would show that it was not opened for more than a period of one year. The commissioner was also examined before the Rent Control Court as CW1. Records available as such would show that the learned Rent Controller has correctly discarded the opinion evidence collected by the commissioner but relied on the report about the nature and present condition of the building on the basis of the materials gathered by the commissioner on his inspection and found in favor of the landlords that there was cessation of the tenanted premises by the tenant. Even though the tenant had assailed the said finding in the appeal it is important to note that he did not file any objection to the commission report. Of-course it was contended that the commissioner had visited some other building and filed the report but, the said contention was not substantiated by reliable evidence. No step was also taken to set aside the Commissioner report. So, the mere contention that the Commissioner had inspected some other building and so the report cannot be relied on, was correctly rejected, in the absence of sufficient materials, by the Rent control court and it was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is also significant to note that apart from the interested testimony of RW1, no reliable evidence was adduced by the tenant to establish that he was occupying the room and there was no cessation of occupation as alleged by the landlords. It is well settled that the initial burden to show that the tenant had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises continuously for six months is always on the landlords. Once such evidence is adduced, the burden shifts on the tenant to prove that there was no cessation of occupation for a continuous period of 6 months. Here, the tenant had not discharged his burden that he did not abandon the premises or cease to occupy it continuously for six months prior to the filing of the petition without reasonable cause. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have meticulously evaluated each and every aspect and came to the conclusion that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months prior to the filing of the petition. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have meticulously evaluated each and every aspect and came to the conclusion that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises continuously for six months prior to the filing of the petition. In the absence any illegality, irregularity or impropriety we have no hesitation to confirm the concurrent findings of the Rent controller and the Appellate Authority and hold that the revision petition is filed without merits and it is only to be dismissed. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the tenant appealed to us to grant reasonable time to vacate the premises. We find it just and proper to grant time of six months from today to vacate the premises, subject to following conditions: (i) The tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within a month from today unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises within a period of six months from today. (ii) The tenant shall pay/deposit the up to date arrears of rent within one month from today and shall continue to pay the rent/occupation charges at the agreed rate, till the date of vacating of the premises. (iii) If the tenant commits breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the relief granted to him as per this order will stand vacated. The Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.