KYTHAYIL RAJU Vs. VALAPPIL MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second among the respondents in the Rent Control Petition is the revision petitioner herein. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently upheld the bona fide need pleaded by the landlord under S. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 'the Act', for short, answering all relevant questions, including the benefit of the provisos to sub-s.(3) of S. 11. The order of eviction was granted by the Rent Control Court also under S. 11(2)(b). The eviction order stands confirmed in appeal on both counts. The basic facts to consider the arguments advanced at the stage of consideration of this revision for admission are as follows:-

(2.) At trial, the landlord, Manoj Kumar, gave evidence saying that he knows that the application is not founded on a ground referable to the alleged sub-tenancy and that no notice has been issued in relation to any such ground. Per contra, Raju gave evidence as RW1 to the effect that he is the tenant and the tenancy commenced with Rajan.

(3.) With the aforesaid, adverting to the definition of the term "landlord" in S. 2(3) of Act 2 of 1965, we see that the said term is defined as an inclusive one. It includes, among other things, one who would be entitled to receive the rent, if the building was let to a tenant. Sub-s.(6) of S. 2 defines tenant to mean "any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building". It has also an inclusive component which enlarges the definition of that term. RW 1, Raju, having admitted that he is the tenant, it makes no difference whether the tenancy commenced during the days when Rajan was the owner, or after Ext. A1. We say so because, Ext. A1 transfer of title by Rajan to Manoj Kumar, the person who filed the rent control petition, is not disputed. If that were so, such transfer of title included the transfer of right to receive the rent, if building was let to a tenant. Manoj Kumar, therefore, squarely falls within the definition of the term "landlord" in S. 2(3), on that ground. We cannot hold that no further sharpening of the relationship by any mode was necessary for the jural relationship between Manoj Kumar, Sreedharan and Raju to fructify as pleaded by Manoj Kumar in the Rent Control Petition.