Judgment :- 1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution praying for a writ, direction or order quashing an order of the Rent Controller, Ernakulam, which was confirmed in appeal and revision. 2. The petitioner was the tenant of a building at Ernakulam. The third respondent who purchased the building and the garden wherein the same is situate applied to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession of the building, as he needed the same for his own occupation. The petitioner objected, contending that the petition was not maintainable. One of the grounds taken was that the right available to a land-lord to get an order for eviction was not available to the vendee of the landlord. This question was heard as a preliminary point and the same was decided against the petitioner by the Rent Controller and the order was confirmed in appeal and revision. The correctness and validity of this order is questioned in this original petition. 3. The application for eviction was made when the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, was in force. That has been replaced by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 16 of 1959. S.11(3) of the Act contains a specific provision where the appellant is a transferee of the land-lord. S.11(3) provides as follows: "A land-lord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the land-lord in possession of the building if he bonafide needs the building for his own occupation or the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. S.11(3) provides as follows: "A land-lord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the land-lord in possession of the building if he bonafide needs the building for his own occupation or the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building in his possession in the same City, Town or Village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so: Provided further that no land-lord, whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument of transfer inter vivas shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year from the date of the instrument: Provided further that if a land-lord after obtaining an order to be put in possession, transfers his rights in respect of the building to another person, the transferee shall not be entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him." Under the second proviso in S.11 (3), all that a transferee who bona fide requires the building for his occupation has to do is to wait for one year before making the application. The deed of transfer in favour of the third respondent is one dated 16-9-1957. It is therefore clear that whatever might have been the position under the Rent Control Order, the transferee is entitled to apply for an order for eviction under S.11 of the Act. So far as the application of the third respondent is concerned the period of one year provided for in the second proviso has also expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner however argued that the third respondent must file a fresh application under S.11 (3) of the Act. There is no substance in this contention because S.33 (1) of the Act provides as follows: "33(1). Learned counsel for the petitioner however argued that the third respondent must file a fresh application under S.11 (3) of the Act. There is no substance in this contention because S.33 (1) of the Act provides as follows: "33(1). All proceedings commenced or deemed to have been commenced and all actions taken or deemed to have been taken under the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, or the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, and pending at the commencement of this Act shall, so far as may be deemed to have been commenced or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and be continued subject to the provisions of this Act." The application now pending must therefore be treated as one filed under S.11 (3) of Act 16 of 1959 and there is no necessity to direct the third respondent to file another application. 4. No other point arises in this original petition, and it is accordingly dismissed with costs including counsel's fee of Rs. 75/- to the 3rd respondent. Dismissed.