JOSE Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the authorities below to the effect that the tenant ceased to occupy the petition schedule building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. The case set up by the revision petitioner/ tenant before the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control appellate Authority is that the embargo for filing an application for eviction and a time limit of one year imposed by the third proviso to S. 11 (3)of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control)Act (for short 'the act) is to be imported toan application for eviction filed under S. 11 (4) (v) of the Act as well. We fail to appreciate this contention raised by learned counsel for the revision petitioner. In our considered opinion, the time limit of one year specified in the third proviso to S. 11 (3) of the Act will apply only in a case where a transferee landlord files an application under S. 11 (3) of the Act and not under any other provisions of the Act. Had it been the intention of the Legislature to create such an embargo as a general rule, that would have been incorporated as a separate section or as a separate sub-section to S. 11 of the Act. On the contrary, what we find is that it has been given as a proviso to S. 11 (3) of the Act alone which indicates that the intention of the legislature was limited to applications filed under S. 11 (3) of the Act and not under any other sections of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner/ tenant that the application is not maintainable cannot be accepted. That apart, it has to be noted that from a reading of S. 109 of the Transfer of property Act, it is clear that unless there is any contrary intention made out in the document of assignment, the transferee - lessor is entitled to all rights and liabilities as that of the transferor. The tenant has no case that from the document of transfer a contrary intention can be deciphered. For the aforesaid reasons, the authorities below rightly ordered eviction of the revision petitioner/ tenant under S. 11 (4) (v) of the Act after entering a finding that he has ceased to occupy the petition schedule building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. We find no illegality or irregularity in the orders under challenge. Accordingly we confirm the orders of the authorities below and dismiss this revision. . .