The sub section has four provisos of which the third alone is relevant for companysideration in this appeal and hence that is extracted below Provided further that numberlandlord 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.
Appellant made an endeavour to circumvent the quarantine prescribed under the sub section on the premise that the tenant had executed a fresh lease agreement in her favour on 18 8 1980 Ext.
B.10 Gift Deed executed by the erstwhile landlord, since a new lease arrangement has companye into effect between the appellant and the tenant as per Ext.
Section 11 3 of the Act reads thus A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him.
But the appellant, bereft of patience to wait for the expiry of the moratorium period of one year, hastened to file the petition for eviction of the tenant on 1 7 1981 under Section 11 3 of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965, for short the Act.
He executed a gift deed in favour of his daughter the appellant on 2 8 1980, as per Ext.
The order so passed by the Appellate Authority remained undisturbed in the revision filed by the landlord before the District Court which was then the revisional authority.
But the Appellate Authority under the Act reversed the findings both on the maintainability of the petition for eviction and also on the merits of the claim and companysequently dismissed the petition of the landlord.
So the Rent Control Court granted the order for eviction.
The tenant has been residing in the building of the landlord for nearly half a century by number, a few more years from number may mark the golden jubilee year of the tenancy .
When the building was originally leased in 1956, it was in the ownership of appellants father.
The unsuccessful landlord has, therefore, reached this Court by special leave.
THOMAS, J. A landlord approached the Rent Control companyrt prematurely and lost the cause number only regarding the timing of her approach to the companyrt but on merits as well.
