Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. This revision petition arises from R.C.P.No.11 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Aluva. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent in the R.C.P. The respondent is the landlady and the petitioner in the R.C.P.

2. The landlady filed R.C.P.No.11 of 1989 in the Rent Control Court, Aluva under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter refer to as ‘the Act’) seeking to evict the tenant from the petition schedule building. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition both under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Against the order of the Rent Control Court the tenant file appeal R.C.A.No.5 of 1994 in the Court of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, North Paravur. As per its judgment dated 8th January, 1996 the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal holding that the order of the Rent Control Court directing eviction of the appellant from the petition schedule room under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) is sustainable in the law on the facts of the case. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority the tenant has filed this revision petition.

3. Before the Rent Control Court the landlady contended that the petition schedule room belonged to her and that it was rented out to the respondent (revision petitioner) on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- on 17.5.1986 as per the rent deed. The rent was to be paid on 17th of every calendar month and interest at the rate of 12% per annum was to be paid on arrears. However, after the rental arrangement no rent was paid by the tenant despite repeated demands and the legal notice issued on 24.2.1989. It was also contended that the petition schedule building was bona fide needed by the landlady for providing a separate residence for her son Roy who was dependent on the landlady. However, the tenant contended that there was no arrears of rent. The rent for the month of November, 1986 was sent by way of draft which was returned. The rent for the month of December, 1986 onwards was sent by Money Order, but it was also rejected. On 12.4.1987 in the presence of mediators an agreement was entered into between the landlady and the tenant wherein the landlady agreed to sell the petition schedule building along with the property to the tenant for a consideration of Rs.1,84,000/-. The time limit for execution of the sale deed was six months from the date of the agreement. A sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid by the tenant to the son of the landlady in two installments towards sale consideration. On the date of agreement the dispute which existed regarding the non payment of rent was also settled. Since the tenant was ready and willing to obtain the sale deed after paying the entire balance he was not liable to pay any arrears of rent. It was also contended by the tenant that the need set up by the landlady was not bona fide. He further contended that no other building was available on rent in the locality.

4. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant had not paid rent from the month of May 1986 onwards. The Rent Control Court also held that under the cover of an alleged agreement for sale the tenant as no right to say that the landlord-tenant relationship ceased to be in existence. According to the Rent Control Court, if the tenant had entered into such an agreement for sale with the landlady and if the landlady did not perform her part of the agreement he should approached the civil court with a suit for specific performance. Hence the trial court did not accept the contention of the tenant that the understanding between the parties was that no rent need be paid after the date of alleged agreement. The Rent Control Court also noted that PW1, the son of the landlady for whom the building was sought to be evicted, out rightly denied any understanding between the parties that no rent need be paid after the date of the agreement. The Rent Control Court referred to the deposition of C.P.W.2 who is stat