(1.) BOTH these revisions filed under S. 20 of the Kerala buildings (Lease and Rent' Control) Act are by the respondent in R. C. P. No. 31 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode-IL R. C. P. No. 31 of 1990 was an application filed by the respondent herein Minder sub-ss, (2), (3)and (8) of S. 11 of the Act for eviction of the revision petitioner. The Rent Control Court allowed the eviction under S. 11 (2) of the Act and disallowed the claim for eviction under sub-ss. (3) and (8) of S. 11 of the Act. Challenging the order for eviction under S. 11 (2) of the Act, the revision petitioner herein filed R. C. ajni. 65 of 1994. The respondent herein filed R. C. A. No. 72 of 1994 challenging the rejection of his claim for eviction under sub-ss. (3) and (8) of S. 11 of the act. The two appeals were heard together. By a common judgment, the Appellate authority dismissed the appeal filled by the revision petitioner and confirmed the order for eviction under S. 11 (2) of the Act. The Appellate Authority allowed R. C. A. No. 72 of 1994, the appeal filed by the respondent herein party and reversing the finding of the Rent Control Court, passed an order for eviction in favour of the respondent herein minder S. 11 (8) of the Act. The finding on S. 11 (3) of the Act regarded against the respondent herein by the Rent Control Court was not interfered with. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the R. C. A: No. 65 of 1994 and allowing in part of R. CJL No. 72 of 1994 by the Appellate authority, the revision petitioner has filed these revisions before this Court. Since there was only one petition for eviction in the Rent Control Count, strictly speaking, it might have been sufficient if the revision petitioner had filed only one revision before this Court challenging the entire order of the appellate Authority.
(2.) THE building consisting of two rooms belonged to one kunhilakshmi Amma, Kunhilakshmi Amma leased the building consisting of both the rooms to the revision petitioner herein who is hereafter referred to as 'the tenant'. That was under Ext. A1 rent deed dated 3. 6. 1969. THE tenant sublet one of the rooms bearing No. 67482 to the respondent herein and continued in occupation of room No. 6/483, the larger of the two rooms. Thus, the respondent herein was the sub-tenant of a part of the building. THEre was a partition in the family of Kunhilakshmi Amma, the ultimate landlord and the building in question was allotted to the share of one Santhakumari Amma. THE sub-tenant of room No. 6/482, the respondent, purchased the reversion over the entire building from Santhakumari Amma. That was on 12. 9. 1988 under Ext. A2. On the strength of the assignment taken from Santhakumari Amma, the sub-tenant of room no. 6/482 issued Ext. A3 notice to the tenant, demanding surrender of room No. 6/483 on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground that the sub-tenant needed the room in the possession of the tenant bonafide for his own occupation. THE tenant sent a reply repudiating the claim that the rent was in arrears and also contending that the assignee from the original landlord had no bonafide need as alleged. After exchange of notices, the assignee landlord, the sub-tenant of room No. 6. 482, filed the application R. C. P. No. 31 of 1990 for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, on the ground of bonafide need for own occupation and on the ground that the landlord, who was in possession of a portion of the building, requires additional accommodation for personal use. THE application was resisted by the tenant who pleaded that rent was not in arrears and that the bonafide need put forward was not genuine and was a mere pretext for eviction and that the assignee landlord was not entitled to an order for eviction either under S. 11 (8) or under S. 11 (3) of the Act. It may be noted that no specific issue was joined on the question whether the application for eviction at the instance of the assignee landlord under S. 11 (8) of the Act was maintainable.
(3.) S. 11 (8) of the Act enables a landlord who is in occupation of a part of the building, to apply for eviction of the remaining part of the building or any portion thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use. In this case, the landlord, Kunhilakshmi Amma and her successorin-interest, Santhakumari Amma, were not in possession of any portion of the building. The entire building had been let out to the tenant, the revision petitioner. The assignee-landlord went into possession of a portion of the building under the tenant, as a sub-tenant. In other words, the possession or occupation of room No. 6/482 by the assignee-landlord was in his capacity as a sub-tenant under the tenant and not in his capacity as the landlord of the building. While he was in occupation of a portion of the building as a sub-tenant, the sub-tenant took an assignment of the rights of the ultimate landlord leaving intact the intermediate estate with the tenant created under the lease Ext. A1. Factually, the sub-tenant has become the ultimate landlord of the building and he is in possession of a part of the building. But the possession or the part of the building is not possession qua landlord but is only possession in his capacity as a sub-tenant under the tenant. When a subtenant takes an assignment of the ultimate reversion from the owner or lessor, that does not bring about an extinguishment the intermediate estate created by the landlord in favour of the original tenant. The sub-tenancy created by the original tenant would survive, until determined in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act or put an end to by recourse to any of the provisions of the Rent Control Act in cases where that Act has application. Here, the position therefore is that the assignee-landlord has stepped into the shoes of the landlord and he is also in possession of a portion of the building, not in his capacity as the ultimate landlord, but only in his capacity as a subtenant or a tenant under the tenant. The question is whether, such possession of a portion as a sub-tenant, would entitle the assignee landlord to seek an order for eviction under S. 11 (8) of the Act.