Court holds that incidental residence does not constitute 'occupancy' requiring proof of the location as the person's actual living center.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim regarding the 'occupancy' prerequisite, ruling that incidental presence in a room is insufficient. The applicant argued for a broad interpretation of residence, while the court emphasized the need to establish the location as the factual center of the person's life. Consequently, the court decided that without proof of the room serving as the primary dwelling, the condition for unauthorized use was not met.