The protection under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is available only to natural persons or group of persons and not to legal entities like Co-operative Societies.

Ramakrishnan, J.

Revision petitioners, the Palakkad District Co-operative Printing Press Limited (for short 'the Society') and its President, are challenging the concurrent orders of eviction of the building occupied by the Society as a tenant under the respondents on the ground of bona fide need.

2. Though in the Memorandum of Revision, the correctness of the finding regarding bona fide need was also challenged, at the time of arguments learned counsel for the revision petitioners Shri. V. Chitambaresh, according to us very fairly, has not pressed any such contentions and has raised only one point for our consideration. The learned counsel has thus canvassed the correctness of the view taken by the Rent Control Court and the learned District Judge that the tenant in this case being a Co-operative Society is disentitled to avail the protection granted under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 to the tenants in general. It was forcefully submitted that so long as the Society is a tenant as defined in the Act and satisfies the two mandatory conditions stipulated in the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act, the Society cannot be denied the benefit of the said proviso which is a very valuable protection conferred on the tenants in general by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a beneficial legislation mainly intended to protect the tenants from unreasonable eviction by the landlords. The learned counsel has sought support for the above contention from a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1986 KLT 1250 (Haji P. Mammu v. Abdurahiman basha).

3. The second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act is thus;

"Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business."

For availing the protection granted as per the above proviso, the tenant is bound to establish that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income defined from any trade or business carried on in the building let out to him and that there is no other suitable building available in the locality for him to carry on such trade or business. In this case, both the Rent Control Court as well as the learned District Judge has taken the view that the tenant of the building being a co-operative Society, it cannot claim the protection conferred under the above proviso. Both the authorities have not given any reasons in support of the view taken by them. In fact, both the authorities have proceeded on the basis that it is a point on which there cannot be any controversy at all. The learned District Judge has in fact noted that the tenants have no such contention even.

4. The definition of the word 'tenant' contained in S.2(6) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 would certainly take in both natural and legal persons within its fold as the word 'tenant' has been defined to mean any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building. However, it is important to note that the words defined in S.2 of the Act may have wider or restricted meaning as the context requires. That is clear from the opening words of S.2 of the Act which contains the usual clause "unless the context otherwise requires". The wording of the proviso would clearly indicate that only if a tenant proves that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in the building occupied by him as a tenant, the tenant can take advantage of the protection granted under tire second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The words 'his livelihood' can naturally have only reference to a natural person and not to an inanimate lifeless legal entity like a Cooper