A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

The tenant who was sought to be evicted from a shop room and an attached godown by the respondent a firm by name "Mogul Theatres & Padiyans Complex" on the grounds under S. 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), is before us in revision under S. 20 of the Act. The respondent would aver that the tenanted premises which have been in the possession of the petitioner since 1983 are required for storing certain machineries and other equipments during demolition of a cinema, viz. "Mogul Theatres" belonging to the landlord situated in the nearby compound and also for storing building materials during the period of construction of a shopping mall and multiplex theatre in the situs after demolition.

2. We are not referring to the averments under S. 11(4)(iii) of the Act, as it was found against and the order has become final.

3. The revision petitioner resisted the claim contending that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between him and the respondent firm, as the tenanted premises, according to him, was taken on lease by him from "Padiyath Shopping Complex" and not from the respondent "Mogul Theatres & Padiyans Complex." He also denied the need projected on the ground that "Padiyath Shopping Complex" was in possession of several other rooms having more than 5000 sq.ft. to serve the alleged need. According to the revision petitioner, the need alleged is a temporary one which will not fall within the meaning of "need" as contemplated under S. 11(3) of the Act. He also sought for protection under both the provisos to S. 11(3).

4. The order of eviction under S. 11(3) of the Act having been granted by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner has approached this Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. We have also perused the relevant records including the impugned judgment as well as the order of the Rent Control Court.

6. As observed earlier, the contention of the revision petitioner is two fold. Firstly, it was argued that the revision petitioner took the building on lease in the year 1983 from the firm "Padiyath Shopping Complex" and not from "Mogul Theatre & Padiyans Complex", who is the respondent herein. Hence, according to the revision petitioner, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between himself and the respondent firm. Secondly, it was argued that the need alleged is of temporary-nature i.e., till the completion of the shopping mall and the multiplex theatre in the nearby compound and that will not come within the meaning of 'need' as contemplated under S. 11(3) of the Act. We will address these arguments in succession.

7. The line of contentions taken by the revision petitioner compelled us to venture into the facts quite in extenso. The revision petitioner has admitted the execution of Ext. A2 rent deed on the basis of which he was put in possession of the tenanted premises. Ext. A2 was executed in the year 1983 by the petitioner in the name of one Mohamed Ali, S/o. Padiyath Aydrose, who was representing the firm "Padiyath Shopping Complex". While P.A. Mohamed Ali made mention of in Ext. A2 is the son of Padiyath Aydrose, P.M. Mohamed Ali representing the respondent firm is the son of Padiyath Mohamed. It is the definite case of the respondent that the firm which leased out the premises to the revision petitioner stood reconstituted with effect from 13.01.2007. We had the profit of seeing the copy of the partnership deed dated 27.04.1979 by which the firm came into existence. It was produced by the respondent as directed by us. The firm by name "Mogul Theatre & Padiyans Complex" was constituted on 27.04.1979 with nine partners. P.A. Mohamed Ali, S/o. Padiyath Aydrose was the managing partner. P.M. Mohamed Ali, S/o. Padiyath Mohamed was one among the partners.

8. We do notice that the said firm was reconstituted subsequently on 21