The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965, the statutory tenancy continues to exist even after the termination of the contractual tenancy, and the tenant continues to hold the building under the old terms and conditions, as defined in the Act.

1. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant in O.P. 57/62 and got an order in his favour; but his petition for execution was dismissed as time-barred. In 1976 another petition for eviction was filed. The Rent Control Court allowed it. But the appellate authority thought that after the decree in the 1962 petition, there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties; and on that basis, it dismissed the eviction petition. The District Court took a different view, in proceedings under S.20. Hence this revision by the tenant.

2. The main point raised by counsel is this. The parties were landlord and tenant under a contract, prior to 1962 This contractual tenancy was terminated at the time O.P. 57/62 was filed. After such termination and during the pendency of the proceedings, there was only what is called a statutory tenancy. This too came to an end when the O. P. was allowed. Thereafter, there was no tenancy of any kind, no landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Control Court had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain and allow the 1976 petition.

3. The expression "statutory tenancy" is something coined by the courts to explain the position of a tenant who continues to be in possession of the building during the pendency of Rent Control proceedings. Tenancy is strictly a matter of contract. If it is for a term, it expires at the end of the term. If there is no agreed term, it can be terminated by due notice. When the tenancy is terminated either by efflux of time or by notice, the landlord-tenant relationship ceases to be there. But still the tenant cannot be turned out of the building except under the provisions of the Rent Control Act where that applies. S.2 (6) of Act 2 of 1965 defines a tenant so as to include a person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy. That is, even after the termination of the contractual tenancy he continues to be a tenant for the purposes of the Act. He will have all the rights and obligations of a tenant as defined in the Act, in spite of the termination of his tenancy. It is this peculiar position of his under the provisions of the statute that is denoted by the expression "statutory tenancy".

4. What then are the terms or incidents of this peculiar tenancy? Dealing with a similar situation arising under S.2 (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, the Supreme Court said that the incidents of such a tenancy and a contractual tenancy "must be the same", unless any provisions of the Act conveyed a contrary intention (see Damadilal v. Parashram AIR. 1976 SC. 2229). Therefore, in the absence of other provisions in Act 2 of 1965 conveying a contrary intention, the position of a statutory tenant is more or less the same as a contractual tenant. The tenancy continues, notwithstanding its termination, with its old incidents.

5. The question then is whether there is anything in Act 2 of 1965 which must lead to a different position. S.11 (15) is relevant in this context. It provides that where an eviction petition filed by the landlord is dismissed, "the tenancy shall be deemed to continue on the same terms and conditions as before" As we have seen, a petition for eviction is normally filed after termination of the contractual tenancy, and the person continuing in possession thereafter during the pendency of the eviction proceedings is a statutory tenant. But when the petition is dismissed, S.11(15) provides that he will revert back to the old position. "The tenancy shall be deemed to continue" on the old terms and conditions. The contractual tenancy is thus resurrected. The statutory tenancy stands converted into the old contractual tenancy, when the eviction petition is dismissed, by virtue of S. H (15).

6. Is the position different when the eviction petition is allowed? In fact, that is the argument of counsel. Under S.2 (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act noticed earlier, a tenant includes a person continuing in possession after the termination of his te