K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

1. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady. The respondent filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), claiming eviction of the tenanted premises. The brief facts of the case are the following:

2. The scheduled room originally belonged to the grandmother of the respondent. The same was taken on lease by the tenant in the year 1983. On 27-3-2004, the grandmother executed a Will bequeathing the said room in favour of the respondent. The testator died on 20-4-2004. Soon thereafter, the respondent issued a notice to the tenant on 16-9-2004 claiming arrears of rent from 1-6-2003. When the Rent Control Petition was filed, apart from the ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act was also included. The respondent wanted the room for starting a Tax Consultancy Office for her. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the application, contending that the need urged is not bona fide and she does not require the room for running the Consultancy business. Further, it was submitted that the tenant is using the room in connection with his business, which is being run in the adjacent room. He is depending on the income from the said business for his livelihood.

3. From the side of the landlady, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A-1 to A-5 were marked. From the side of the respondent, no evidence was tendered. The Rent Controller allowed the application on both the grounds. The appellate authority affirmed it. Hence this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the finding under Section 11(3) of the Act alone. It is submitted that the rent found to be due has already been deposited. The learned counsel also submitted that the testamentary succession of the tenanted room by the respondent herein will amount to a transfer inter vivos, as contemplated under the third proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is also contended that the respondent is not a "landlord", as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act, with reference to the third proviso. Therefore, the respondent should have waited at least for an year to institute the Rent Control Petition. In this case, she succeeded to the estate on 20-4-2004. The Rent Control Petition was filed on 20-11-2004. So, the petition is not maintainable, it is submitted.

5. The third proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act reads as follows:

"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."

Black's Law Dictionary defines "inter vivos" as "between living persons". So, transfer inter vivos means a transfer between living persons. So, the testamentary succession on the death of the testator can in no way be described as transfer between two living persons. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the testamentary succession involved in this case is a transfer inter vivos is plainly untenable.

6. The definition of the landlord, contained under Section 2(3) of the Act, is an inclusive definition. In other words, it is not exhaustive. The ordinary meaning of the landlord is not excluded by the said definition. By the death of the grandmother, the respondent herein became the owner and therefore, she is entitled to receive the rent for the building. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is not a "landlord" for the purpose of the third proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act is also manifestly untenable.

7. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent is not competent to run a Tax Consultancy Centre. In the cross-examination, she has admitted her i