SMT. BIMLA DEVI ETC. vs MST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ETC.

The Supreme Court interpreted the term 'occupation' in Explanation (IV) to Section 21(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, holding that a landlord does not need to physically reside in the property to be considered in occupation. The Court affirmed that even if a landlord is living elsewhere but retains control over the property, such as through household effects, they are deemed to be in occupation. The appeals were allowed, granting eviction orders to the landlords based on the interpretation of 'occupation' as encompassing both actual and constructive possession.