Bhaskaran, J.

The challenge in this Rent Control Revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority holding that the revision petitioner tenant of the building shown in the Rent Control Petition is liable to be evicted under S.11 (4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

2. The petitioner in the Rent Control Petition purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 27-3-2002 from the original owners and filed the Rent Control Petition in the same year contending that the tenant has in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city and that he is liable to be evicted under S.11(4) (iii) of the Act. The tenant contended that as per the rental agreement dated 2-9-1996 between the tenant and the original landlords, he was entitled to be in possession of the tenanted premises for a period of ten years and the Rent Control Petition, filed before the expiry of ten years is not maintainable. He also contended that the allegation in the Rent Control Petition that the tenant has another building reasonably sufficient for his requirement is incorrect.

3. The Rent Control Court considered the following points. (1) Whether the petition is barred under S. 11(9) of the Act, and (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for an order of eviction under S. 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. These are the points which are seriously and strongly pressed before us also. The question whether the alternate accommodation available with the tenant is sufficient for his purpose or not was not considered in detail by the Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Senior Advocate who argued the case of the tenant before the Appellate Authority had expressly stated in court that he was not seriously pressing that point and it was for that reason that the Judgment of the Appellate Authority does not contain any discussion on that aspect. One of the questions to be considered in this revision is how far the tenant can urge that contention in the revision before this Court. The question whether the tenant is entitled for the protection of S.11(9) was considered by the Appellate Authority and it was found against the tenant. There was also a further contention that the Rent Control Petition was barred by limitation.

4. The points for consideration mi this revision are (1) whether the tenant is justified in contending that the Rent Control Petition is liable to be dismissed under S.11 (9) of the Act, (2) whether the landlord has established the grounds available under S.11 (4) (iii) of the Act to get an order of eviction in the, Rent Control Petition and (3) whether the Rent Control Petition is barred by limitation.

Point No.1

5. Ext.B-1 is the registration copy of the sale deed in favour of the present landlord by the original landlords. A reading of that document clearly establishes that the original landlords had agreed for renewal of the lease fox a further period often years on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000 for the first five years from 1-8-1996 and thereafter at Rs.10,400 for the remaining five years. Therefore, the fact that the earlier landlords had agreed for a continuation of the tenancy arrangement for a period of ten years on payment of the stipulated rent cannot be disputed. There is also no dispute that the Rent Control Petition is filed before the expiry of ten years from the date of the renewal of the lease. But the contention of the present landlord is that the lease agreement between the original landlords and the tenant was not a registered lease and that document was not produced before court. Therefore, in the absence of a registered lease deed an agreement to lease for ten years is not legally enforceable. The further contention of the landlord is that though S.11(9) of the Act states that "where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, the land