Important points:
" The lessee has expressed his willingness to extend lease for a further period of 15 years from 01.09.1995 and the lessor has agreed to give the scheduled premises on lease for a further period of 15 years on the terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned- The present occupation is a holding over only-The Rent Control Petition, seeking order of eviction, is perfectly maintainable
" In the absence of registered instrument, the lease shall be deemed to be "lease from month to month". It is clear from the very language of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, which postulates that a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any time exceeding one year or reserving yearly rent can be made only by a registered instrument. In Anthony vs. KC Ittoop and Sons and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 394 the Supreme Court held that non-registration of a document would cause two consequences. One is that no lease exceeding one year was created. Second is that the instrument became useless so far as creation of lease is concerned.

1. The revision petitioners are the landlords, and the respondent is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 9/2012 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The revision petitioners/landlords filed the aforesaid R.C.P. against the respondent under Ss.11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking an order of eviction. After considering the objection raised by the respondent/tenant, the Rent Control Court found that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable, as it is barred by S.11(9) of the Act. Though they had preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 11 of 2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, the Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the Appeal. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below, that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable as it is barred by S.11(9) of the Act, are challenged in this Revision Petition.

2. The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition. According to the petitioners, they are in bona fide need of the petition schedule building for their own occupation, for starting a hotel business and they have experience and means to start the hotel business. They have no other buildings of their own in their possession to start the said business and several other buildings are available to the respondent in the same locality, to shift his business from the petition schedule building. On the above premises, the petitioners prayed for an order of eviction, under S.11(3) of the Act. Further, they contended that the respondent has subsequently acquired possession of two other buildings in the same locality and thereby, they are entitled to get an order of eviction under S.11(4)(iii) also. Thus, the petitioners prayed for an order of eviction under S.11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

3. The respondent resisted the claim for eviction, under Ss.11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act, mainly contending that the Rent Control Petition itself is not maintainable, as it is barred by S.11(9) of the Act. According to him, the original lease was for a period of five years as per Ext.B1 agreement, dated 1.02.1990. On the expiry of the said lease deed, they have executed another lease agreement on 24.12.1994 for a period of 15 years, commencing from 01.02.1994. In that lease agreement, there was a condition that for every five years the rent shall be enhanced by 25%. Moreover, clause (5) of the agreement stipulates that after the expiry of the original lease period, the period of lease shall stand extended for a further period of 15 years on payment of 25% increase in rent, for every five years. The original lease period of 15 years expired on 31.01.2010. At that time, the rent payable was Rs. 14,500/-. From 01.02.2010 onwards, the lease period would stand automatically extended for another 15 years by the payment of enhanced rent and hence the lease period would expire only on 31.01.2025. From 01.02.2010 onwards, the respondent has been paying the enhanced rent of 25%, which comes to Rs.18,750/- and the petitioners have been receiving the enhanced rent, knowing fully that the lease stands extended for another 15 years from 31.01.2010. In short, according to the respondent, the period of lease would expire only on 31.01.2025. Therefore, the present Rent Control Petition filed in the year 2012 is barred by S.11(9) of the Act. As regards the claim for eviction under S.11(3), it is contended that the need projected in the petition is not bona fide and it is a ruse for eviction only. Hence, he is not liable to be evicted under S.11(3) of the Act. As regards the claim for eviction under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act, it is contended that the averment that he has subsequently acquired other buildings in his possession is not correct. The said buildings are owned by a partnership firm, of which, the respondent is only a partner. He has not acquired possession of