The interpretation of S.11(16) and the definition of 'landlord' under S.2(3) was central to the Court's decision, emphasizing the requirement of written consent for filing eviction petitions and the limitations on who can confer such consent.

1. The respondent-tenant in a petition for eviction under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965, for short the Act, is the petitioner in the civil revision. The petition for eviction was filed by the respondent herein. The building belongs to his son and the nephew. According to the respondent, as per the sale deed (Ext. A8) he has the right to collect the rent and of residence in the building. The petitioner-tenant in his objections Bled to the petition for eviction raised a contention that the respondent cannot file the petition for eviction without the previous written consent of the landlord and the recitals in the sale deed will not amount to such a written consent and will not empower him to file the petition for eviction,

2. The Rent Control Court found that the authorisation in Ext. A8 can be treated as a consent insisted by S.11(16) of Act 2 of 1965 and hence, even in the absence of Ext. A7, the respondent can maintain the petition for eviction. Accordingly, the petition for eviction was allowed by the Rent Control Court. The petitioner filed an "appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority held that only a person employed by the landlord merely for the purpose of collecting rent need have the previous written consent insisted by S.11(16) of the Act and a person like the respondent who has a right to receive rent is a landlord within the meaning of S.2(3) and hence he can maintain a petition for eviction. It was further held that the authorisation in Ext. A8 is sufficient under S.11(16) for the respondent to maintain the petition for eviction. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The above judgment was challenged by the petitioner in a revision under S.20 before the District Judge. The learned District judge held that'the restraint placed by S.11(16) is on the agent landlord contemplated under S.2(3)' and hence the respondent should have permission from the owners to maintain the petition for eviction. The learned District Judge then extracted the authorisation given by the vendor in Ext. A8 sale deed and held that the necessary permission required under S.11(16) of the Act is there in Ext. A8. It was also held that the necessary permission is there in Ext. A7 letter. The petitioner's revision under S.20 of the Act was hence dismissed by the learned District Judge. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with this civil revision.

3. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether a person who collects rent as agent of the landlord can file a petition for eviction without the previous written consent of the landlord of the building in view of S.11(16) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965? Will the position be different if he was given some rights including the right to occupy the building for his life time by the vendor? and (2) can the right to file the petition for eviction be conferred by the vendor of the building and whether the tenant can contend that the sale deed cannot confer any such right on a person other than the vendee?

4. In Pahalajmal Khatumal v. T. V. & Brothers ((1961) 1 M. L. J. 150) it has been held:

"The expression 'merely as an agent of the landlord' has necessarily to be read along with the earlier clause 'who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent'. 'Merely' therefore, qualifies the extent of the power of the agent, and where such power is limited only to receiving the rent or to be entitled to receive the rent, such an agent cannot apply for the eviction of the tenant unless he is armed with the further power in the shape of previous written consent of the landlord." (page 151)

S. 7(7) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1949 contained a provision similar to S.11(16) of the Kerala Act In Nanalal v G. J. Motorwala (AIR. 1973 Guj.131) the question that came up for consideration was whether one of the co-owners of a bui