K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Can a sub-tenant turned landlord defeat the rights of a tenant under the Kerala Rent Act by purchasing the landlord's rights is the interesting question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Petition Schedule building bearing door No.37/69-2 of Cochin Corporation originally belonged to one Thottakkattu Bhanumathi Amma. She let out the building to one Madhavan who sub-leased the same to one Shanmughan for conducting a hair cutting saloon by name Indian Hair Cutting Saloon at Cannon Shed Road, Ernakulam. Petitioner before Rent Control Court the tenant sought eviction of the respondent subtenant under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. According to him rent from 1.1.1977 is defaulted and a sum of Rs.11,400/- is due as arrears of rent and an amount of Rs. 1,200/- is also due by way of interest at the rate of 6%. He also needs the building for starting a stationary business. A notice dated 2.7.84 was issued demanding arrears of rent and also for surrendering the building for own occupation. Subtenant resisted the petition denying title of the petitioner and stated that schedule building belongs to Thottakkattu Bhanumathi Amma. Further it was also stated that the tenant is only a deemed landlord and hence not entitled to seek eviction under the Act. Further it was also stated there is no arrears of rent and the need urged by the petitioneris not genuine. Subtenant also stated that his family is depending on the income obtained from the hair cutting saloon and if he is evicted he would not be able to get suitable building for the conduct of his business.

3. Rent Control Petition 114 of 1984 was originally allowed by the Rent Control Court on 31.1.1986 on both the grounds urged. Matter was taken up in appeal as RCA 70 of 1986. The order was confirmed. Subtenant respondent took up the matter before Revisional Authority and the Revisional Court remanded the matter on 16.6.1992 setting aside the finding of the Appellate Authority as well as that of the Rent Control Court. Before remand tenant was examined as PW-1. Exts.A1 and A2 documents were marked. Subtenant was examined as RW-1 and B1 to B5 were produced. After remand no further evidence was adduced by the tenant. RWs. 3 and 4 were examined on the side of the subtenant. Rent Control Court after considering oral and documentary evidence found there is no arrears of rent. Rent Control Court however, ordered eviction under S. 11(3) of the Act holding that the need urged by the tenant is bonafide and that the subtenant is not entitled to get the benefit of second proviso to S.11(3). Subtenant was directed to put the tenant in possession. Subsequent then took up the matter in appeal as RCA 50 of 1993. Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal, against which this revision has been preferred by the subtenant.

4. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner sub-tenant submitted that the tenant is not entitled to get eviction since he is only a "deemed landlord" and therefore would not come within the definition of landlord under S.2(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Quasim v. Manoharlal Sarma & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 11 and contended that for 'the purposes of eviction under S.11(3) the landlord has to be the owner and only the owner can claim as of right and to the exclusion of everyone, the right to occupy the tenanted premises.

5. The revision petitioner subtenant has filed a petition, I.A.2271/03 before this Court to take note of the subsequent events. Along with the said petition he has produced a document No.4714 of 1996 of SRO, Ernakulam, stating that he has purchased the landlord's rights and consequently he became the full owner of the schedule premises and appurtenant land. The said fact was intimated to the tenant vide his letter dated 10.7.1997 to which the tenant replied by registered letter dated 29.7.1997 stating that he is unawar