P. Somarajan, J.

1. The tenant, in revision, challenges the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), mainly on the reason that the petitioner, who initiated eviction proceedings before the Rent Control Court, was not having title or ownership over the property and that she could not maintain an application for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court upheld the objection and dismissed the R.C.P. under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act. It was taken up in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta, in R.C.A.No.12/2013 and the finding of the Rent Control Court was reversed by the First Appellate Authority holding that in view of subsequent impleadment of the petitioner's daughter, in whose favour she had given the property, the petition became the one initiated by the lawful owner as the impleadment and consequential amendment, if otherwise not ordered, would revert back to the date of petition and found that the petitioner had established the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed, which is under challenge.

2. It is an admitted case that the building was taken on lease by the tenant from the first petitioner, mother. Even at that time, she was not having any interest or ownership over the property as she had given up her right, title and interest over the property to her daughter, the additional second petitioner, by executing a deed of conveyance. The said document of title is neither produced, nor let in evidence by the petitioners. Without producing the above said document of title, they proceeded with the petition and suffered a dismissal before the Rent Control Court. The matter was taken up in appeal and the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Control Court on finding that the application is maintainable by the subsequent impleadment of the additional second petitioner, in whose favour the property was transferred by the first petitioner prior to the application.

3. Very serious questions came up for consideration before us, such as:-

(1) Whether the exhaustive definition given under Section 2(3) of the Act to the expression “landlord” would bring a person who is receiving rent as an agent within its sweep for all the purposes under the Act including maintaining an application for eviction under Sections 11(3), 11(4), 11(5) and 11(8) of the Act?

(2) What would be the impact of subsequent impleadment of lawful owner to the petition as an additional petitioner regarding its maintainability and what would be the application of doctrine of relation back?

(3) Whether the non production of title deed, which stands in the name of a person other than the person from whom the tenant had taken lease, has any bearing on the question of bona fides as envisaged under Section 11(3) of the Act?

4. A Division Bench of this Court in Devammadas v. Ramachandran Nair reported in 2005 (3) KLT 647, had an occasion to consider what actually amounts to the expression “landlord” as defined under Section 2(3)of the Act. Section 2(3) of the Act gives a wide and exhaustive definition to the expression “landlord”, but Section 2 of the Act starts with the caution “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires”. It was held that the expression “landlord” has to be understood in the context in which the Rent Control Petition is filed.

5. Going by the scheme of Section 11 of the Act and the exhaustive definition given to the expression “landlord” under Section 2(3) of the Act, it cannot be said that the legislative intention was to put in or to substitute an agent, who is receiving rent for and on behalf of the landlord, in the place of landlord for all the purposes of the Act. Sections 11(2), 11(4) (i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act, in essence, are resting on the principle of violation of obligation attached to the