Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

Tenant's revision.

2. The respondent sought eviction of the revision petitioner from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), alleging as follows:

The mother of the respondent, who was the owner of the petition schedule building, leased out the same to the revision petitioner in September, 1968, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,350/- for conducting a boarding and lodging business, on condition that the building should not be sub let to others. This was after getting vacant possession of the building from one Govindan Nair, who was the previous tenant. It was found that the revision petitioner had sub let various rooms of the building to other lessees without the consent of the respondent's mother. Payment of rent was also defaulted. Respondent got the petition scheduled building alloted to his share in the family partition. He needed the building to run a boarding and lodging business to earn a livelihood.

3. The revision petitioner countered that the respondent is not entitled to claim rent. The building was taken on lease for the purpose of letting out. Previously, the building was being used as a hostel. The building does not have the amenities to carry out the business of lodging. The revision petitioner is depending on the income derived from the petition schedule building and no buildings are available in the locality to shift the business. The respondent was aware of the occupation of various tenants. Most of them were in possession of the building, even before tenancy arrangement and the allegation that the building was let out without the consent of the respondent is not true. The need alleged by the respondent is not a bonafide need. The intention of the respondent is to sell out the property.

4. The learned Rent Controller declined eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. However, eviction was ordered under Section 11(4)(iv). The revision petitioner appealed, but without success.

Thus, he has come up in revision under Section 20 of the Act.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court.

6. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the building, which admittedly, was let out for running a boarding and lodging, is in fact exempted from the provisions of the Act itself. In support of this argument, the learned counsel relied on Sec.2(1) of the Act which defines "building" as under;

"(1) " building" means any building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non- residential purposes and includes-

(a) the garden, grounds, wells, tanks and structures, if any, appurtenant to such building, hut, or part of such building or hut, and let or to be let along with such building or hut;

(b) any furniture supplied [x x x x x] by the landlord for use in such building or hut or part of a building or hut;

(c) any fittings or machinery belonging to the landlord, affixed to or installed in such building or part of such building, and intended to be used by the tenant for or in connection with the purpose for which such building or part of such building is let or to be let,] but does not include a room in a hotel or boarding house;"

(emphasis supplied)

7. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner can be evicted only by filing a suit in a civil court after terminating the lease as provided under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Properties Act. It was argued that this question has escaped the attention of the courts below and the order of eviction is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

8. There cannot be any quarrel against the proposition that a rentee of a room in a hotel or boardi