The relevant proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act places an absolute bar against the filing of an application for eviction on the ground of the landlord's bona fide requirement until the expiry of one year from the date of the transfer inter vivos.

1. his revision petition arises out of proceedings for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It was originally filed as a writ petition" (O. P. No. 2761/1967) but in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Vareed v. Mary (1968 K. L. T. 583) that a further revision under S.115 of the C.P.C. is not precluded against the order of the District Judge as revisional authority under S.20 of the Act, it was converted into this revision petition. It was then referred to a Division Bench and has come on before us,

2. he tenant who has been concurrently found to be liable to be evicted from two shop rooms in Broadway, Ernakulam, by the Rent Control Court, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority, is the petitioner before us. The Respondent before us purchased the landlord's rights under a registered document dated 29-9-1962 and filed a petition for eviction on 21-11-1962. Several grounds were urged for eviction, which, it is unnecessary to detail. The Rent Control Court found that rent was in arrear, and that the landlord required the building bona fide for his own occupation and ordered eviction on these grounds, and found against the other grounds urged. Before the appellate authority the Respondent did not dispute the fact that arrears of rent were deposited by the tenant, and the question of arrears was therefore not debated. The only ground thus urged to sustain the eviction before the appellate and revisional authorities, and before us, was that the landlord required the building bona fide for his own use.

3. It was common ground that the Act applicable to the proceedings in question is the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2/1965, (referred to as the Act) although the petition for eviction was instituted under the earlier Act of 1959. The relevant provisions of the two Acts are pari materia. S.11 of the Act in so far as it is material reads:

11. Eviction of tenants (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

(2) x x x x x

(3) landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him;

Provided further that no landlord whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument of transfer inter vivos shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year from the date of the instrument."

Although the objection that the landlord, as a transferee under a document inter vivos, was not entitled to apply for eviction within one year of the date of the assignment was not expressly raised in the written objection of the present petitioner, the point was argued and considered by all the three authorities. The objection was overruled, in all, for two reasons which can be gathered from a reading of the three different orders of the authorities below. One ground was that the objection not having been raised in time must be deemed to have been waived. (Apparently this has reference to the objection having been raised only at the time of the arguments, shortly prior to the order of the Rent Control Court, which was on 21st October 1966). The second ground was that, as, by the time orders were passed on the petition for eviction the period of one year mentioned by the proviso had expired, the embargo created by the said proviso ceased to be effective. The correctness of this view has been challenged before us.

4. On the terms of the relevant proviso to S.11 (3) extracted above, it seems to place an absolute bar against the filing of an application for eviction on the ground of the landlord's bona fide requirement. It is only after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the tran