IMPORTANT POINTS:
Merely on the reason that the landlord-tenant relationship is denied, it cannot be held that the said denial would amount to denial of title, in view of the definition of 'landlord' and 'tenant' as contemplated under Sections 2(3) and 2(6) of the Act-The paramount title of the building has no relevance or significance, while determining the status of the landlord.

K. Harilal, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the concurrent findings of the courts below, granting an order of eviction, under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition.

2. According to the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner bona fide needs the vacant possession of the petition schedule building, to start a paint and hardware shop. They have no other buildings of their own in their possession to start the said business. But, several other vacant buildings are available in the locality, to shift the business of the respondent from the tenanted premises. The respondent is not mainly depending upon the income from the business carried on in the petition schedule building. On the above premises, the petitioners prayed for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.

3. The respondent resisted the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, contending that the need projected in the petition is not bona fide. Further, he contended that he is one of the co-owners of the petition schedule building and he became a co-owner by way of purchasing the undivided share of the 3rd petitioner, by virtue of the assignment deed No.2290/1986. He is taking steps to file a suit for partition of the petition schedule building, in view of the said assignment deed executed by the 3rd petitioner in his favour. He further contended that by virtue of the aforesaid sale deed executed by the 3rd petitioner in his favour, the landlord-tenant relationship has ceased to exist. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition, mainly on the ground that the rent control petition itself is not maintainable.

4. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the rent control petition is maintainable, as there is no denial of title or claim for permanent tenancy, as contemplated under Section 11(1) of the Act. Further, it has been found that merely by the purchase of ¼th share of the petition schedule building, there would be no determination of lease and the status of the respondent as tenant would remain as such and continue to be as that of the tenant only. Further, the courts below granted an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, on a finding that the need projected in the petition is bona fide and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners.

6. Though this revision petition has been filed on various grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant mainly focused his arguments against the findings of the courts below that the rent control petition is maintainable, as the respondent would remain and continue to be as tenant, despite the purchase of ¼th share of the tenanted premises from a co-owner and there is no denial of title or claim for permanent tenancy.

7. In view of the arguments at the Bar, the question to be considered in this revision petition is, whether a tenancy will come to an end or the landlord-tenant relationship will cease to exist, when the tenant purchases a fractional share of the tenanted premises from one of the coowners/landlords?

8. Going by the impugned judgment, it could be seen that the respondent has raised a contention that he has purchased ¼th share of the tenanted premises from the 3rd petitioner, by virtue of a sale deed and by the said purchase, the lease has become determined and after the said purchase, the respondent cannot be treated as a tenant. In other words, according to the respondent, his status as a tenant has ceased to exist by the purchase of ¼th share of the petition schedule building