Judgment : Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed against him by the Rent Control Court on the ground of cessation of occupation under Section 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. 2. The building in question was let out to the revision petitioner for conducting repair works of electronics and electrical goods. It was alleged in the rent control petition that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition and that even the electricity connection to the building had been disconnected by the Electricity Board due to non payment . The revision petitioner tenant through his statement of objections strongly disputed the existence of the eviction ground. Significantly, he did not raise a contention that it was due to any reasonable cause that he had ceased to occupy the building. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A1 & A2, Exts.B1 to B4 and Exts. C1 & C1(a) and oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and CPW 1 & 2. PW3 was Adv. Ambili C.Joseph, who submitted Ext.C1 commission report and C1(a) sketch. PW2 was a neighbouring shop keeper who gave evidence to the effect that the building in question had not been occupied at all by the tenant for more than six months prior to the filing of the rent control petition. Ext.C1 report was clearly to the effect that the building in question had not been used for much more than six months continuously by the tenant. The learned Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that eviction ground under section 11(4)(v) stood established in the case and accordingly ordered eviction. 3. As soon as the order of eviction was passed, the tenant filed a petition seeking review of that order as I.A. No.3752/2007.It was averred in this I.A. that even before the rent control court passed the order of eviction, the landlord had sold off the entirety of his rights in the petition schedule building to one Smt.Prabha Kuruvila by virtue of sale deed No.3639/2006 of Sub Registry, Kottayam. It was contended through the review petition that the landlord had ceased to be a landlord and the order of eviction so passed was liable to be reviewed. The main contention was that the sale of the building by the landlord in favour of Smt.Prabha Kuruvila was a subsequent event which fundamentally affects the landlord's right to maintain the rent control petition itself. The learned Rent Control Court did not become inclined to allow the review petition. 4. The tenant preferred appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority also, it was urged that on account of the subsequent event of the landlord selling off the building, the rent control petition had become not maintainable and the order of eviction is liable to be set aside. The learned Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the factual findings entered by the Rent Control Court. That authority was also not impressed by the contention that on account of the subsequent sale, the rent control petition had become not maintainable. According to the Appellate Authority, there was no acceptable evidence on the basis of which it could be held that the building in question had been sold away by the landlord. 5. In the revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.Alex M.Scaria, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments before us on the basis of all those grounds. We have considered those arguments. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We have kept in mind the statutory provision (Section 11(4)(v)) as well as the judicial precedents which govern the above provision. We do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction for interfering with the impugned judgment. As noticed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, the report of the Advocate Commissioner, which was proved properly by examining the commissioner, established to the very hilt that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building which had been let out to him for the conduct of repairing works of electrical and electronics goods continuously for more than the statutory period of six months. Significantly, the tenant did not raise a contention that it was due to any reasonable cause that he had ceased to occupy the building. It is very clear to our mind that the finding concurrently entered by the statutory authorities that the petitioner tenant had ceased to occupy the building continuously is absolutely correct. In this context, we notice that even the electricity supply, which is indispensable for conducting the activity for doing which the revision petitioner took the building on lease, had been disconnected even prior to the commencement of the statutory period of six months. 6. Before us also, Sri.Alex M.Scaria highlighted that the landlord had sold away the petition schedule building. According to Mr.Alex, the entitlement of the landlord to evict the tenant under Section11(4)(v) should continue till the eviction order is effected. The subsequent event of the landlord selling the building has taken away such entitlement and hence, the order of eviction is liable to be set aside. If the new landlord wants to evict the tenant, it is for him to initiate separate proceedings, so submitted the learned counsel. 7. Before examining the factual correctness of the submission that the landlord has sold away the petition schedule building, we will consider the legal aspects of the above argument. It is an inclusive definition that is given to the word "landlord" in the statute. The respondent filed the rent control petition claiming that he is the landlord. The revision petitioner did not dispute the maintainability of the rent control petition. He did not deny the respondent's title as landlord in terms of the provisos to sub section (1) of Section 11. Even in the review petition, the tenant has not raised a contention that the respondent has ceased to be the landlord. Interestingly, in paragraph 4 of the review petition, the tenant is placing reliance on an order passed by the Accommodation Controller directing the respondent to restore the electricity connection. The tenant's motion before the Accommodation Controller arraying the respondent as the landlord will show that the tenant recognises the respondent as his landlord even in the review petition. The learned Appellate Authority has even observed in his judgment that the tenant is paying rent even at that time to the respondent herein. We are sure that the above observation is made on the basis of a concession made at the Bar. The learned Appellate Authority has even observed in his judgment that the tenant is paying rent even at that time to the respondent herein. We are sure that the above observation is made on the basis of a concession made at the Bar. Thus, despite the so called sale, the parties mutually recognise each other as landlord and tenant. 8. We shall now consider the argument that the sale of the subject building is a subsequent event which should lead to dissolution of the order of eviction already passed by the Rent Control Court after a full fledged enquiry. It should be remembered that the order of eviction has been passed under Section 11(4)(v). In the above section unlike sections 11(3), 11 (8) or some other eviction ground in which the landlord is bound to establish the bonafides of his claim, the landlord's entitlement to get the order of eviction depends not directly on the merits of his claim but on the entailment of the liability for eviction by the tenant due to any action or inaction on his part. If the tenant has entailed liability under Section 11 (4)(v), it is because he ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. In the instant case, on the basis of a detailed enquiry conducted by the Rent Control Court, it was found that the revision petitioner has entailed the liability to be evicted under Section 11 (4)(v) and it is in recognition of such liability that the court ordered eviction. We do not think that the above liability will stand dissolved due to any subsequent action by the landlord. In short, it is clear to our mind that even if the landlord has sold away the building, such sale cannot be a subsequent event having a fundamental impact on the landlord's right to evict the tenant under Section 11 (4)(v). 8. We shall now consider the correctness of the argument that the building is sold of. A copy of the sale deed executed by the landlord in favour of Smt.Prabha Kuruvila was placed before us by Mr.Alex. We perused the same. We do not think that the sale deed pertains to the petition schedule building. What we find is that it is a pucca residential building bearing a totally different municipal door number together with a well that is sold. We perused the same. We do not think that the sale deed pertains to the petition schedule building. What we find is that it is a pucca residential building bearing a totally different municipal door number together with a well that is sold. The petitioner is not entitled to place any reliance on the above sale deed at all. The Revision Petition fails and will stand dismissed.